Talk:In C

bad link

The chronology links to the Linda Ronstadt "You're No Good", it should link to a Terry Riley page for "You're No Good". DLM 22:43, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

eighth note pulse

I've seen something written about this piece where it's stated that the pulse should preferably be played by an attractive woman, but the program notes on the otherminds score don't mention it; is my brain playing tricks on me again? Mindspillage (spill your mind?) 22:19, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• chuckle* I can't recall ever having seen that stipulation before. I've just been Googling around, and I found a report from the 2001 Western Canada Stick Seminar which says Actually, and more specifically, the instructions call for the pulse to be played by a beautiful woman on the piano. But that's all I can find, and there's no reference to where they obtained their version of the instructions. --Kay Dekker 20:23, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hah, I found it, in the performance notes of the edition I have in print. Preferably played by a beautiful woman, indeed. Too colorful a detail to be left out. Mindspillage (spill your mind?) 22:15, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Alas, my computer is hardly a beautiful woman... --Kay Dekker 03:45, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I also note that my (1964) printing states that players should stay with 4 or 5 phrases of each other, instead of 2 or 3 as mentioned in the otherminds score, and my instructional notes are more extensive. Mindspillage (spill your mind?) 22:25, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Excellent! I do wish that I had a copy of those notes - I made a realisation of the piece with SSEYO Koan Pro and Myriad Harmony Assistant just before Christmas (just over 25 minutes long due to software limitations, but I think rather good) working from the otherminds score, and I now do wonder rather what subtleties I may have missed. --Kay Dekker 03:45, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

samples?

Because each performance is different, could we maybe have a few .ogg samples of versions people have done?

In an ideal world, yes, but I don't believe it's a commonly played piece, and there's always copyright issues too. 209.89.36.244 05:48, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello...with the Small World podcast page being hacked and no other external links present here, I thought I'd mention to the editors that I have created and made available as streaming audio (and with permission from Riley's management) a realization of In C. I did not want to edit the article, since I'm serving it off my personal site, and just signing up and linking it myself doesn't seem like what a reputable encyclopedic site ought to be doing. It's much better if it's a "peer reviewed" link, so if the editors of this page see this, you can find the writeup and audio stream by going to my site at flagmusic dot com, and click the green "Read more" link near top center where there's a brief blurb about the piece and my realization. That will take you to the page where I'm serving it. If you think that page is worth linking, great. If not, I certainly understand. I hope to contribute to some other articles and set up my user page soon as well...I've been meaning to sign up for a while now. Thanks! JCHall (talk) 05:23, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Heh. Just added this link, came here, and found this note. Thanks, JC! :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 06:11, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for linking it, Sarek! It's a lovely work and I hope folks enjoy my version of it. I'm also very pleased to thank Riley's management for giving me permission to serve it from my site. JCHall (talk) 23:43, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

surrealism vs. serialism

I think that the opening paragraph should state that the piece is a response to serialism (a rather different concept than surrealism... I assume this is just a mistake?Benito Crawford 23:30, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Moreover, two claims are folded into the sentence but the reference only establishes one (Riley's intention) not the- very disputable- claim of fact that immediately follows. Schissel | Sound the Note! 00:35, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Terry Riley-In C (album cover).jpg

Image:Terry Riley-In C (album cover).jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 03:48, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Uploaded again with description. Which one is the best one? Hoover gives a very short description.

a) 120px|(Atma, 1983), b) 120px|(Riley : In C - Eddy de Fanti : Djembe), c) 120px|(1990), d) 120px|(25th anniversary, 1995), e) 120px|Ictus, f)120px|Parcurama, g) 120px, h) 120px, i) 120px, j) 120px|Ut Gret - Recent Fossils k)120px|Re-sound - In C |border|120px|Jeroen van Veen - Minimal Piano Collection?

Or are we gonna put all of them at the end of the page (new title "Recordings", where we put the list and these images)?

--Saippuakauppias ⇄ 08:29, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I have changed the transclusion of these images to links to them as non-free images can't be used outside the article namespace (see WP:NFCC). Stifle (talk) 09:39, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Simplest Key to Play on the Piano??

I dispute that the key of C is the simplest to play on the piano and would invite a citation. Many novice players find the key of C simple because they can largely ignore the black notes. I think we can assume that most people playing 'In C' would not be novice players. When I was studying piano it was drummed into me that the key of C was amongst the hardest to play on the piano as it is difficult to make scales "flow" (the fact that your fingers are different lengths lends itself to playing some black notes smoothly especially in scales when played at speed).

I accept that 'In C' is not a fast piece but the statement given in the opening paragraph is something of a generalisation - and I would argue a mistaken one. Any other opinions? Any professional musicians feel like they could comment?

If I could find a citation for the above (apart from my music teacher!) I would amend the opening para myself.

Edit - actually I've just read it again and although it's nit picky it's really offending me as it's just plain wrong. I don't need to cite a reference to remove something so I'm just going to do that and tidy up the grammar. If anyone thinks I'm wrong please revert my edit and we can discuss here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RogMcDog (talk • contribs)

That's perfectly fine, but remember to sign your posts on talk pages and use descriptive edit summaries. —Keenan Pepper 19:12, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't have any issue with you removing the phrase however I think you may have misunderstood it. Simple is the opposite of complex; easy the opposite of hard. Simple is not the opposite of hard and complex is not the opposite of easy. Wikiyuvraj (talk) 00:50, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Do we have something in the article acknowledging that the choice of key is in part due to the connotations of simplicity in spelling and thus thought and perhaps performance associated with C major/A minor? Hyacinth (talk) 01:13, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Years ago I spoke to the composer and asked him why he chose the key of C (particularly as string instruments such as violin, viola etc have a better time in G or D, sax likes Bb or Eb and so on). He said, "Well, C is the proverbial simple key." He wanted the idea of simplicity and, I'm interpreting here, C has an almost totemic quality of simplicity. Gingermint (talk) 23:06, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Deleted Link

http://smallworldpodcast.com/?p=535 Performance of Terry Riley's In C- Page was hacked

Link with Album?

I'm not sure how you can link a composition with an album. It's like displaying a Deutsche Grammophon album on the page for Mozart's No. 25 ... --89.56.133.48 17:14, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely right. I'd propose to put "albums" contatinig the piece ant then put all the cover images there. --Saippuakauppias ⇄ 08:31, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Album ? - Pictures

I don't care, but In C isn't an album, for serious music there doesn't exist any albums! Therefore we put either all albums ever recorded containing In C or we leave out all of them.
Just my opinion. - What do you think? --Saippuakauppias ⇄ 13:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I care a little, and I agree that In C is not an album, and that the album image should be removed. It looks as though the process of adding the album images has never really gotten going anyway. --Froggy88 (talk) 20:21, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Performance rights relinquished by Riley?

Is it true that Riley "offers" the score kind of "freely distributable" for performances? If so, it should be noted. -- megA (talk) 10:44, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I know that the score is distributed under a Creative Commons license, but I don't believe that means that he has relinquished performance rights -- just that it's freely available for study. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:44, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I see. Thank you. -- megA (talk) 12:59, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

That's just my opinion, of course. If you can find a source better informed than I am, I agree that it should be added. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:02, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Tempi

I recently converted the recording information into a chart, adding a column for tempo for each recording. I took most of these tempo values from Robert Carl's book on In C, but some of them I timed on my own from recordings of the pieces. I see that the tempo value for the SLC Electric Ensemble recording has flipped back a few times in recent days, once being reverted to the original value I put (42), on the basis that no reference was given for revising it. I thought that my original value was dubious, in that I got it by counting the original pulse as eighth notes, but it seemed that the later phrases were played essentially double time, at twice the tempo I had determined. (Please forgive any inaccurate terminology here -- I'm not a musician.) I had planned to revisit the issue anyway, and I am glad that someone has already done so and made the correction.

In the interest of full disclosure, the other listed tempo values based on my determination are those for the DesAccordes, Ut Gret, Jerome van Veen, Orkest de Volharding, GVSU NME, and Hans Balmer recordings. My determinations for those pieces should be given no more weight than anyone else's.

I realize that some might consider determining tempi from listening to the pieces themselves to be "original research" that doesn't belong in the article. Regardless, I think that the information is very useful, and makes a positive contribution to the article. For that reason I think that it should be kept in. -- Froggy88 (talk) 13:25, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

It's unclear why this much information is necessary. The tempo of a recording is an interesting bit of trivia. Is it needed for every recording? So too with the instrumentation and the recording date.

MOS:DISCOGRAPHY is pretty straightforward: Title (label, year) – notes. Why not just use that format?Trumpetrep (talk) 03:25, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

MOS:DISCOGRAPHY was not formulated for compositions as fluid as this one. IMO the table gives an informative insight into the performance practices of this piece. Unusual pieces, As Slow as Possible springs to mind, demand unusual presentation formats. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:25, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

The discography dwarfs the rest of the page and is full of trivial facts. For instance, the fact that the Icebox Project performed the piece on January 9, 2025 at 70 bpm for 52' is hardly encyclopedic information. This is exactly the kind of list the manual of style prohibits. Many of the artists on the list are not notable. Many of the entries on the list are not commercial recordings at all but archives of performances, like the "Video recording of the first public performance in Saratov".

Given the Start-class rating on this article, it seems like a good idea to trim the fluff.Trumpetrep (talk) 13:07, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

I should have mentioned this earlier, but a response to a 15-year-old comment seems odd. However, I agree that obscure performances like the ones you mention and a few more should be culled. Anything that has a record label or a source attached should stay. The notability bar for list entries is considerably lower than general notability for article subjects. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:10, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Date format

Should we use dmy or mdy dates? dmy is used in the body text, but mdy is used more often in the Recordings section. Anyway, either Template:Use dmy dates or Template:Use mdy dates should be added at the top, and appropriate changes made. — Kawayama (talk) 12:18, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Discography

I've rightsized the discography for this article. The old version is here if anyone wants to reference it. I found a few additional recordings that were not listed while I was trying to verify the ones that were.

For the moment, I see a few big issues with this article. It has a lot of good information that is poorly organized. It also ignores quality sources and relies far too heavily on websites and program notes.Trumpetrep (talk) 02:15, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Indeterminacy is defining for this work, and that includes its "instrumentation", for want of a better word. So dropping that from the discography section is regrettable. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:17, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

There's nothing preventing anyone from adding the instrumentation to the notes section of the discography. There are several explanatory notes in there already, like the fact that Terry is playing on the Repetitition Orchestra's recording. Given all the other information that is currently lacking from this article, I don't think the fact that the Acid Mothers Temple & the Melting Paraiso U.F.O used a glockenspiel on their recording is a more pressing detail.

The old discography had too much extraneous information and not enough required information like the name of the record label and the year of the release. Instead, it chose to include the date of the recording, which is irrelevant for Wikipedia readers, regardless of how interesting it is as trivia.

The reason I posted a link to the old discography is precisely so that editors who wish to restore some of its information can do so. Right now, I'm focused on organizing the information in the article to be more helpful to readers and a better resource for researchers.Trumpetrep (talk) 18:50, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Psychedelia

Hi Trumpetrep. I noticed your ES question "Is there a better link for the psychedelic movement?". Psychedelia, a word used in that quote, may be suitable. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 00:36, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

Thank you!

Why didn't you add it, just out of curiousity? I'm happy to do it, and thank you for alerting me to this article. Trumpetrep (talk) 00:54, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

I assumed you would have come across psychedelia when you added a number of related links to that quote and decided not to use it. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:53, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks again for adding it. The influence of drugs on the piece and its marketing is one of the things I was surprised wasn't in this article when I started looking at it. There's still a great deal more to do, but it's getting there.Trumpetrep (talk) 15:05, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

2025 Overhaul

When I dug into this article, the body was only 5 paragraphs long. There was barely any history of the piece and no meaningful discussion of the LP recording. The article was dominated by a discography that had lots of interesting information but which is generally considered inappropriate for Wikipedia.

Most importantly, of the 19 footnotes, only two were from academic sources (Bonds & Anderson), and Robert Carl's invaluable book about In C was not cited. Now, the important references for In C are cited in the article. There is enough information here to point researchers in the right direction.

Given the prominence of the LP, I do think it merits an article of its own. That would require moving the Acid Mothers Temple article.

The psychedelic influence on the piece, its performance history, and the three very distinct versions of Terry's instructions are all now addressed in this article. Crucially, anyone looking for information about how to perform the piece will now clearly understand that the pulse is not a requirement.

One issue I didn't resolve was what to do with the jettisoned information from the discography. As Michael points out, the variegated instrumentation of In C's discography is an important feature of the work. I don't think the article would be harmed by adding some of that material again, while retaining the proper discography format.

A much smaller issue is the term "open score" which is no longer in the article. In C is an open score as most of us understand the term. However, "open score" also has a very specific and different meaning in music history. I was surprised to see how few references were available to support the alternative meaning of "open score" in reference to In C. Given that, I decided to omit it.

Some people may think the suggested ending should be included in the article. In 1989, the unison #53 getting louder and softer multiple times before players drop out was printed as a definitive ending: "IN C is ended in this way:". In the current instructions ("In C usually ends this way"), it is clearly just a suggestion, as are most of Riley's rules. Given the length of the article, and the amount of material it covered, I didn't think the ending required extended discussion.Trumpetrep (talk) 16:43, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

User:MONTENSEM, I'm drawing your attention to this note for reference. I understand your impulse to reorganize the article chronologically. It garbled the text though. The recording is landmark enough to be in its own article. It certainly cannot be a subsection.

So let's discuss any major reorganization here first, since the article has just undergone one. Trumpetrep (talk) 20:21, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Connection to The Who's Baba O'Riley?

Maybe I missed it, but I was surprised not to find mention of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baba_O'Riley 156.68.192.6 (talk) 21:35, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

That's a fair point. There isn't a direct line between "Baba O'Riley" and In C as much as there is between the song and Terry Riley's music in general. That's why there's been no mention of Pete's song here, but there certainly could be. Trumpetrep (talk) 04:36, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

Composers and compositions

Hi Trumpetrep, generally, I'd write "Stravinsky's Octet" if Octet is linked, as with "Berg's ... Wozzeck" following. MONTENSEM (talk) 22:00, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Otherwise you end up with two links in close proximity. MONTENSEM (talk) 22:01, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining your thinking. In an encyclopedic article, it seems like a composer's full name is required when they are introduced in an article. It would be one thing if the previous paragraph or section mentioned Stravinsky, but this is the only appearance of his name in the article.

I'm also unaware of why two links in close proximity is problematic. Trumpetrep (talk) 02:27, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

I think I picked it up from Gerda Arendt a while ago. So I might delink Miles Davis and others, to avoid two links, but maybe keep the first name then. MONTENSEM (talk) 02:35, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

But why? It's unclear what the issue is with having two links in a row.

Miles Davis' name should be linked to his Wikipedia article when it first appears, as should "So What". The fact that they appear together doesn't prevent us from linking both terms. It would be bizarre not to provide the links. Trumpetrep (talk) 03:58, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

It's to prevent a "sea of blue", and I think somewhere in the MOS there is something about separating the links. I think it is a good principle most of the time, so I usually apply it. MONTENSEM (talk) 04:23, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

It's right at MOS:SEAOFBLUE, actually. :) SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:57, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

For me, it depends on context. When I write about a composition, I name its composer fully and with a link. When I write about a singer performing this work, and the work has an article, the composer's name is not needed but rather a means of identification of the piece, and their biography rather irrelevant to the singer's, and then I just say Bach or Mozart or Verdi without a link (and without the sometimes longish and sometimes even debatable given names), - a reader who has no idea who that is and wants to find out can look it up in the piece's article. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:38, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

In this case, I'd say "Miles Davis" without a link, because Davis alone is ambiguous. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:43, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Ah, I understand now what you are thinking of, but it is quite different from the example of a composer and their work. The "sea of blue" concern is about consecutive Wikipedia links conflating two separate terms as in "chess tournament".

In the case of a composer and their work, no one is going to be confused by Miles Davis' "So What" or Igor Stravinsky's Octet being linked to their respective articles. The two terms are clearly dissimilar. One is a name of a person, the other a composition. It's a different linguistic construction.

Moreover, it would seem odd to not provide links to those articles. Trumpetrep (talk) 13:43, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

My feelings on this aren't strong, and so I write here more to explain and to think aloud than to persuade. I think it's good practice in general, but strictness is problematic. In general, oftentimes you'll have a grammatical catalogue in a sentence (e.g., a concert program, a reception history, a conductors' article). I'd want to avoid having to link both creator and work repeatedly, or I'd have a "sea of blue". I'll link to creators where there isn't an article on the work, and to works where there is an article on the creator, preferring to focus where possible. In this case, Stravinsky and Berg are pretty prominent, unambiguous names. The guidance itself is very general. There is an ontological or conceptual distinction of sorts here (game types to stable contest format, changing borders to relatively stable cities, composers with shifting identities to relatively fixed works): I'd personally not want to link Stravinsky because: (1) the focus is on his Octet (although there are similarly comparable and probably similarly compared works of his, and there are probably parallels drawn to Stravinsky in general in the literature), and (2) he's often described as "chameleon-like". I'd definitely not want to link to Berg, because the focus is on one scene in Wozzeck (although there are rhythmic parallels in parts of the Altenberg Lieder, Chamber Concerto, Lyric Suite, and Lulu). If I were going to make a strict policy argument, I'd say that in general, it is "conceptually blurry" for the reader, who might click on Stravinsky, thinking they're clicking on the Octet. But there's a corollary to that: they can be separated. MONTENSEM (talk) 08:24, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

In fact, I have sometimes wondered why articles aren't just titled in a "[creator's] [work]" format rather than "[work] [genre]", but ... anyway (there were probably debates some time, long ago, where this was settled from a more intrinsically pragmatic perspective, when people were more worried than we are today about data or especially internet speed and its impact on time: I personally don't find the reader-might-click argument so compelling and wonder whether it is about "conceptual blurriness" at all). But my feelings on this aren't strong; I just run with this as a general rule. I feel certain that more about Stravinsky probably could be said in the article. MONTENSEM (talk) 08:33, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Article structure, omissions

Hi Trumpetrep, and thank you for improvements, as above, to sourcing and prose.

I oppose the structural shift from the earlier, more chronological version to the current, more topical structure.

The earlier version is coherently structured chronologically, then topically, with

• clearer sectioning
• easier scanning
• a familiar, navigable frame: background → composition (instructions) → performances/reception (summarize practice) → legacy

1 ''Background and creative process''
  1.1 Group improvisation and tape loops
  1.2 Conception

2 ''Score''
  2.1 Instructions

3 ''Performance and recording history''
  3.1 1964–1965: San Francisco Tape Music Center
    3.1.1 1964 premiere
    3.1.2 1965 Riley festival

  3.2 1965–1968: Subsequent premieres and recording
    3.2.1 1967 Buffalo
    3.2.2 1967 New York City
    3.2.3 1968 London
    3.2.4 1968 premiere recording
      3.2.4.1 Personnel
      3.2.4.2 Reception

  3.3 1969: Russia and Germany

  3.4 1970–1995: Bay Area revivals and Kronos recording

  3.5 Performance practice

4 ''Legacy''

and preserves the clear, distinct sequence from Robert Carl

Riley arrives in NY ...

Riley's development/opportunities via

1 La Monte Young et al. (Theatre of Eternal Music, long loft concerts, soprano saxophone)

2 David Behrman et al. (Columbia seeking label successors to Stravinsky and Copland, searching for talent, listening to Riley)

Riley/Behrman begin collaborating: Behrman's and Dempster's roles at SUNY/Buffalo Creative Associates ...

Riley/Behrman–Columbia/Dempster/Creative Assocs make the premiere recording ...

effecting wider dissemination of In C, minimalism, Riley's music

to "rightsize" (omit) what the source treats as its core historical argument re: the recording and performances.

Some of those subsections were small (e.g., the three-day 1965 Riley festival), so they could be folded in, expanded, or developed into potential future articles. The current "Composition / Premiere / Recording / Legacy" breakdown removes these contextual facts and relationships. It fragments that trajectory, making key relationships between individuals and events less visible, sometimes in favor of bare event listing. It separates performances and recordings, and is structured in a way that avoids this core argument as composition – performances – form – recordings – legacy:

1 Composition
2 Premiere
  2.1 Subsequent performances

3 Form
  3.1 Score
  3.2 Instructions
  3.3 Performance practice

4 Recording
  4.1 Personnel
  4.2 Reception

5 Legacy

I think the best solution is a hybrid, following sources:

• retain a chronological "Performance and recording history" backbone, and then
• use topical (usually place/event/project-based) subsections within that chronology where helpful.

The first version does this. It preserves chronological continuity adds important context, improving the value of the encyclopedia and better informing the reader. MONTENSEM (talk) 02:21, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

The earlier version is from just a few hours ago. It's not etched in stone, and it was a crude revision of an article that had been overhauled and stable for well over a year.

Your imposition of a chronological narrative on the article created a bit of a mess that needed cleaning up. It deviated from the citation format, created excessive section headings, and added details beyond the scope of the article.

Why would we follow Robert Carl's book? It's already cited two dozen times in the article. One could argue the text relies on Carl too much. It would be ironic to go from ignoring it entirely, until the overhaul, to using it as a model.

I directed you to my notes about the overhaul so you could see the flaws I already outlined. The chief structural defect is the inclusion of the composition and the recording in the same article.

By imposing a chronological structure, you moved details from where they are pertinent to where they are trivial. The simplest solution would be to simply cleave the article in two.

Regardless, the structure was fine as it was. It clearly conveyed the piece's origin, its performance history, and its recording history, as well as its outsize impact.

Let's address any remaining issues as they arise. Trumpetrep (talk) 02:46, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi Trumpetrep, and thank you for directing me, as I referred to from the outset.

I disagree that the recording should be forked out of this article. The recording is linked to the composition and its context not only by Carl, but also by Riley and other historians who point to Young in the legacy section.

1) You describe the earlier version as a "crude revision". How do you mean? That we are "crudely" following Carl in linking the performance and recording? What is crude about it?

2) You write that "one could argue the text relies on Carl too much". Substantively, do other scholars differ with Carl on this material?

Thank you again, MONTENSEM (talk) 03:00, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a notability guideline for albums, and In C clearly meets it. Dealing with it in a separate article could alleviate some of the pressure on this one.

Earlier today, you decided to overhaul the overhaul of this article and rewrite it as a chronological narrative. Such an effort would be welcome if it didn't create problems instead of solving them.

If In C weren't such a landmark album, your chronological preference might make sense. Nevertheless, this article is dealing with two cultural juggernauts: the composition and its recording. Wikipedia readers benefit from an article that clearly distinguishes the two.

One of my chief concerns during my work on this article was overreliance on Carl's book. Wikipedia has a policy against articles with one source for a reason. A healthy article will balance its references. The last thing a 3,000-word article should do when it is already citing one book 18 times is further model itself on the source. Trumpetrep (talk) 03:20, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi Trumpetrep. Thank you for your reply. Meeting notability criteria is necessary but insufficient for a split, right? If possible, we should follow the literature. Does it draw a line between In C and its premiere recording? Otherwise, no one has replied, and so there is not a consensus to split. (Not that I was even thinking about your proposal to split when adding the content. I don't see how a lack of consensus here precludes the content.)

Regarding word count, my edit brought it to 4,300–4,400 words. WP:SIZERULE describes (without prescribing) a count of 6,000 or less for 76% of articles and says, in this case, "Length alone does not justify division or trimming". Why do you say 3,000 words?

The content I added shows that In C and its premiere recording are, not too surprisingly, linked in ways that inform us and make us consider both in the most basic, commonsense way—causally, historically, chronologically—shedding some light on the wider context (e.g., social networks of influence, the role of institutions, the business of music). It is a summary of a scholarly source, which itself has citations. Should I be reading it more closely? Is this contentious?

Earlier, you pointed to "Robert Carl's invaluable book about In C". Why has that source been useful throughout the article until now? Would you be happy with multiple sources, or do you object to the content?

Thank you again for helping me understand where you are coming from, MONTENSEM (talk) 08:14, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

(And to clarify, what I mean by "I don't see how a lack of consensus here precludes the content", is that more content would actually support a split.) MONTENSEM (talk) 08:55, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

The story was already there. Details like the fact that Terry Riley sold his van are trivial. David Behrman has his own article. Simply linking his name is sufficient for readers to learn more. For the purposes of an article about In C, dwelling on Behrman's background for more than a few words is tough to justify.

That's what was rightsized. Pretty much anywhere in this article, the text could be expanded to talk about how the music industry works. Cardew's performance was part of a pretty fascinating moment in the UK, for instance. The SUNY Buffalo performance is not notable enough to dwell on at more length than what the article currently does.

Are Dempster and Foss fascinating characters who readers should know more about? Yes. Should an article about In C take such a detour? No. Both musicians have their own articles for good reason.

Our job as editors is to winnow material so that it makes sense for the general reader. We can't say everything that there is to say about In C. That's not the purpose of an encyclopedic article.

A good example of such compromise is in the discarded discography, which used to be the main focus of this article. It was far too long and had inappropriate trivia. I stripped it down to the Wikipedia format. Another editor lamented losing the instrumentation of each recording. That information could be added back to the article, so long as the balance of the text remains. However, a massive table with trivia like the bpm of each recording is beyond the scope of Wikipedia.

The structure of Carl's book already informs the article. He wrote a chapter each about the composition of the piece, its premiere, analysis of the score, the first recording, and the piece's legacy. That's precisely the way this article is structured.

When you smeared everything together chronologically, you jumbled the text in a way that made the article less useful. Its current word count is just shy of 3,000 words. There could be more material added. The main issue is whether or not it improves the article. Trumpetrep (talk) 15:38, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi Trumpetrep.

1. Size

For the record, the difference we're discussing here is about 300 words, simply copying and pasting between top and references (including the lead and disambiguation, 4,576 minus 4,276). Again I ask, to understand where you're coming from, where are you getting 3,000 words? I don't see this in WP:SIZERULE, and yet your concerns seem centered on "rightsizing"—that there is not enough room to cover this, that we must "winnow material so that it makes sense for the general reader".

The tension here is between this limit and the triviality of atomized facts. That Riley "traded his van"—3 words—"for a loft"—3 more words, instrumental—is to get the loft (part of the New York loft concert scene) in the sequence from Carl. That's six words ("traded his van for a loft") for how he got a loft and gave concerts. What is there now is the uninformative "apartment on Grand Street", four words.

2. Clarity

Rather than smear, chronology makes clear, again, what's missing post-"rightsizing",

Carl's sequence

Riley arrives in NY ...

Riley's development/opportunities via

1 La Monte Young et al. (Theatre of Eternal Music, long loft concerts, soprano saxophone)

2 David Behrman et al. (Columbia seeking label successors to Stravinsky and Copland, searching for talent, listening to Riley)

Riley/Behrman begin collaborating: Behrman's and Dempster's roles at SUNY/Buffalo Creative Associates ...

Riley/Behrman–Columbia/Dempster/Creative Assocs make the premiere recording ...

effecting wider dissemination of In C, minimalism, Riley's music

And why should it be less chronological?—to save the reader from having to navigate a disordered body of paragraphs instead of clear and distinct sections?

Thank you again for your engagement, MONTENSEM (talk) 21:03, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

There is a "Page statistics" tool that generates a word count.

Why does anyone need to know how Terry Riley got a loft in NYC for an article about one of his compositions? That's what we're winnowing. Some facts matter more than others.

Just take a step back and look at the facts that you list under "Carl's sequence". They are mostly about Terry Riley and other people, rather than the subject of the article which is In C.

Those facts are related, but Riley's development and his career opportunities are not the subject of this article. One of his compositions is.

What you'd like to shoehorn into the article seems like a much better fit for his biographical page than this one. Trumpetrep (talk) 21:15, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi Trumpetrep, and thanks for the question, "Why does anyone need to know how Terry Riley got a loft in NYC for an article about one of his compositions?". Yes, I agree, "some facts matter more than others".

"Just take a step back": I like that, because it refers to focus/unfocus, zooming in/out. The header of my comment here "structure and omissions" encircles relevance: the fit of and relationships between parts and wholes, and form and content (structured expression of some account, matter, etc), or alternately, "structure and omissions". There'll always be some biographical overlap in providing background, in this case to what Carl frames as a "second premiere" (not an additional, separate "cultural juggernaut"): the premiere recording. Carl appears to be the only scholar whose book-length subject is Terry Riley's In C. Where editorial choices are otherwise un[der]determined, his organization of the material and use of language are evidence of how a specialist understands relationships among facts. His judgment does not end the discussion; where other scholars diverge, we should reflect that. But his book remains the major scholarly synthesis devoted to the piece and likely reflects a degree of scholarly convergence. We should therefore summarize him closely: his organization of events is itself evidence of scholarly relevance.

The van–loft trade is the heading transition hinge in background to the New York concerts (Buffalo+NYC) and recording in my edit as in Carl. It costs two words ("traded" replaces "moved", add two words: "his van", and "for" replaces "to"). This weight strikes me as WP:DUE, given that it receives a sentence with a parenthetical aside at the head of Carl's sequence and minimally but vividly encodes and reinforces implicit context, which matters (including adjacency to emerging counterculture, which receives recurring attention from Carl and is a concern of this talk page; Riley's financial status: he says he was broke; and the then grittiness of NYC and the then historically low value of its lofts compared to today, as Carl alludes to in his parenthetical aside when he mentions the trade) the same way it does in Carl and that Riley interview: as the transition to New York. Language is evocative. It'd exceed Carl alone to explicitly interpret this in the article foreground, but for two words, we can stick closer to him as a source synthesizing other sources, including by writing "loft", which begins to encode and reinforce additional context (the loft scene). To write "moved to an apartment" is further from it in a way that actually meaningfully distorts the source in generalized abstraction. So I don't see it as a shoehorn, but as Cinderella's little glass slipper.

Is it a biographical detail? Of course. It is background. Some biographical overlap is inevitable if the account is to "make sense to [a] general reader". Riley's still kicking and does not yet have a traditional book-length biography, and Carl's book is titled Terry Riley’s In C. The boundary is therefore somewhat blurry between composer and frame-limiting composition, much as we discussed earlier regarding Stravinsky's Octet.

What do you think?

Can you tell me about the differences in outline?

Thanks again and hope you're enjoying the summer (no need to rush your reply), MONTENSEM (talk) 22:25, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

What you are proposing is to give undue weight to one scholar's book. It is a valuable book. I obviously relied on it a lot to rewrite the article and modernize it. Whenever possible, I also made sure to cite Carl's sources to avoid citing him excessively, as we previously discussed. A 3,000-word article that cites one source 18 times is a bit lopsided.

There were two chief issues with your revision of the text, both of which we have discussed. I'd refer you to the earlier parts of this conversation for that. Whether Terry Riley's van is in the article strikes me as immaterial. Given that its insertion came with a mountain of irrelevant text and a chaotic reorganization of the contents, I'm skeptical the cost of "two words" is all that will be paid for its reinsertion.

As I have said all along, I would encourage you to stick to the structure of the article as it currently stands, fleshing out details that you feel are worth adding. I'd encourage you to consult other sources beyond Carl's book, which has been cited heavily already. Trumpetrep (talk) 22:49, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi Trumpetrep,

Let me refocus my last question, then: What is it about the more chronological organization that "smears" in a way that exceeds Carl or meaningfully diverges from other scholars on the matter?

Thanks, MONTENSEM (talk) 23:00, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

We've been over this exact issue. The article is about two very distinct things. The composition and its recording both could justify independent articles. I'd simply refer you to what I have said previously on this subject about the flaws of smearing the text into a chronological casserole. Trumpetrep (talk) 23:32, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

What sources inform your view that the article is about two very distinct things, contrary to what I find in Carl? MONTENSEM (talk) 23:37, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

see above. Trumpetrep (talk) 23:53, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I did, which is why I focused the question on the absence of an answer (re: sources informing your view that the article is about two very distinct things) there. It may be that Carl's book is innovative in this framing of In C and its premiere recording as historically linked, not distinct. But that doesn't mean that other scholars diverge from him, only that he has synthesized the literature (suggesting convergence). So I ask, have scholars diverged from him, in reviews or in other works, to inform your view? MONTENSEM (talk) 00:03, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

I don't understand what you are talking about. Trumpetrep (talk) 00:18, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi Trumpetrep,

What source-based reason is there for not organizing the article in the order events occurred, particularly in treating the reception (performance/recording) history?

The "one-source" concern doesn't hold up insofar as that structure follows dating across sources—and Carl doesn't cover Cardew/London, for example.

You favor a composition/recording split as "two cultural juggernauts", which may interpret Carl's LOC "guest post" (https://www.loc.gov/static/programs/national-recording-preservation-board/documents/In-C_Carl.pdf), divided into "two stories", the piece's and its recording's background stories. But they're woven together chronologically with performances, emphasizing '67 SUNY Buffalo/Creative Associates.

Thank you, MONTENSEM (talk) 18:07, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

The article is currently arranged in the order events occurred.

There is also an overarching structure which mirrors Carl's book: the Premiere, Analysis, the Recording, & the piece's Legacy.

If you were truly following Carl's book, every performance but the premiere would be dealt with beginning in the Recording section.

That's how Carl organized his material. It makes sense in his book. It's not the best way to organize this article. Trumpetrep (talk) 18:46, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

You didn't answer my question so much as you denied its premise: the article isn't in the order events occurred, because performances after the recording are treated before it.

Yes, nominally Carl divides chapters like the article's sections, but he still organizes material chronologically. From earlier pieces, he approaches what In C will be before what In C is as enacted/realized more phenomenologically at the premiere ("reconstructed" as a process: the score "shown" as to Reich, details about it presented as to musicians, the program explaining it as "... a series of motives built on a mode in C ...", review) before analysis of the score as such.

That's not a reason to organize the article against the order events occurred, particularly in treating the performance/recording history. It's an argument for maybe also treating the score more in that manner, simultaneously with the premiere as an explanatory device, but not for organizing events in an order they did not occur, fragmenting the performance/recording history.

My question stands. MONTENSEM (talk) 20:08, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

I don't understand why I have to keep repeating my answer to your question, especially if all you are going to do is ask it again.

The article is structured to deal with the piece's performance history and its recording in separate sections. If the recording were of no significance, smearing all of that material together into a single chronological narrative might make sense. In this case, it does not because the recording has its own very distinct history and cultural impact.

Carl's book is structured to reflect that reality. The article mirrors Carl's structure in that regard. In one post you are arguing we should follow Carl, and in another, you are saying we should ignore him.

It's hard to follow what this discussion is even about at this point. If you feel something is omitted, add it. As for the article's structure, I don't know what else to say beyond what I've said repeatedly in this conversation. You can re-read my previous comments or read me reiterate anew the fact that the current structure of the article suits it best, unless we were to bisect it into two pages. Trumpetrep (talk) 20:49, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

We're trying to improve the article's structure, which turns on related omitted text.

___

I. Article structure and related omissions –

The answer above continues to misread Carl. Again, nominal chapter divisions aren't the whole text. Also, I don't "ignore Carl", who is chronological (in the book and essay), as I've described repeatedly. But defeating one-source concerns, a chronological structure simply follows dating across sources and isn't proprietary to his book (hence London's appearance before the recording). The article should try to maintain the cross-source-given order of events (i.e., as given across sources).

The current article treats the Columbia recording as a "distinct history" effecting separation from In C's performance history, but Carl frames it as a "second premiere" continuous with performance history (after all, it's a recording ...of a studio performance ...of In C). Carl develops this, showing the path to the recording runs through performances (incl. Buffalo), social networks, institutions, and collaboration.

This is consistent with Levine-Packer, the Columbia recording's crediting of "Members of the Creative & Performing Arts at SUNY-Buffalo" (i.e., SUNY Buffalo Creative Associates), and Behrman's own recollection:

The Terry Riley In C recording came about because there was a group of musicians in Buffalo who were close to Terry, loved the piece and were performing it anyway. It wasn't too difficult to arrange some recording sessions on one of the Buffalo group's frequent trips to New York.

The omitted material, re-summarizing Carl's recording chapter, is important because it restores this continuity.

___

II. Compromise proposal

The van question became a straw-man-like synecdoche for the "mountain" of omitted text and missed the larger issue: article structure turns on the "distinct history" view vs. source-summarizing omitted text. I've asked increasingly focused questions to understand this other view and to find common ground. I want to improve the current article structure while keeping cross-source event order (e.g., London happens before the recording). We can do this and give the Columbia recording more apparent outline/heading prominence, which seems to be a big concern:

1 Background

2 Composition and premiere

Workshopping, score and instructions, early San Francisco performances – Note: I agree, Carl "reconstructs" In C's premiere, partly to show the work's blurring of "tried", actual process (article: "trying out", "Reich suggested") and "true-to-"formal score (at which point it was "tried-and-true"), before moving onto the formal score.

3 Further premieres and path to recording

Two textual changes:

• First, relocate and improve current first paragraph from Columbia recording. Use an efn to nest a small mechanism.
• Second, strengthen Buffalo paragraph.

Total word count difference: 161 proposed minus 118 current = 43 words.

Arriving in New York in fall 1965, Riley traded a van for a Bowery loft, briefly joined La Monte Young's Theatre of Eternal Music, and (partly on Jon Gibson's advice) took up soprano saxophone. He gave marathon loft concerts featuring tape-delays and -loops. These wowed David Behrman, the young composer and experimental music enthusiast fast-tracked into a producer role at Goddard Lieberson's Columbia Records, where John McClure was seeking successors to Igor Stravinsky and Aaron Copland.

In 1967, at SUNY Buffalo's Rockefeller-funded Creative Associates, a new-music program led by Lukas Foss and Allen Sapp, Behrman connected with trombonist Stuart Dempster, Riley's San Francisco State University friend. Dempster had the score and performed it at his October 25 recital. Riley led the ensemble (three pianos, tuned percussion, strings, and winds) on saxophone. The Buffalo Evening News found the performance unbearably repetitive, but it led to the first recording.

Then Carnegie Recital and London

4 First recording

Production, reception. Maybe fit personnel in the ibox or under track listing, or merge all three of these things?

5 Later premieres and revivals

Russia and Germany, Bay Area revivals

6 Performance practice

7 Legacy

8 Discography

MONTENSEM (talk) 11:10, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a guideline for how classical music articles should be structured. This article follows it. You can see a similar structure in these articles:

• Einstein on the Beach
• Symphony No. 3 (Górecki)

There is no need to change the structure of this article. If you want to add information to it, by all means do so. The current structure is stable enough to accommodate more text. The structure you have repeatedly proposed is disjointed and doesn't follow the basic guidelines. Trumpetrep (talk) 14:14, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

All chronological articles will follow that loose background–composition–reception guideline. The key issue is that the article's structure is editorialized against its source basis. MONTENSEM (talk) 14:43, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

Once again,

As said repeatedly,

To reiterate,

How many more times must this be explained:

Our job here is not to replicate academic literature. Our job is to write a Wikipedia article for the general reader.

Wikipedia has guidelines. We are following them. Trumpetrep (talk) 15:06, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

ISBN and TM:ill

User:Trumpetrep, it's unclear why you insist on removing an ISBN from a frequently cited book in this article, Clark (2009). Providing ISBNs is good and widespread practice in Wikipedia bibliographies to assist readers in finding those books. Also, interlanguage links ought to be linked with the template {{ill}} for the reasons mentioned at H:FOREIGNLINK; that template's utility has been discussed at length at that talk page and other places. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:59, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

The citation format is MLA, which does not include ISBNs. Nor do most formats require them.

In my edit summary, I already stated my distaste for the unsightly and bloated interlanguage template. Trumpetrep (talk) 04:48, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

"the rules don't apply to me because i don't like them" Musiceasel (talk) 05:46, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

a) The citation format is MLA – is that stated in the article? Is it currently consistently, as demanded by MOS:CITEVAR, applied? b) Remind me where the WP:MOS refers to your distastes. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 07:19, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm unaware that citation format needs to be stated in the article. How does that even work? The format is obvious by looking at it.

The Carl citation is clearly in the MLA format. You changed it to Wikipedia's template citation. I asked you to leave it in the current format, per the guidelines. You added the ISBN back to the citation. I asked you to discuss any changes here first, which is what we're doing. Trumpetrep (talk) 14:44, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi all,

I think Michael's point is that citation formats are implicitly encoded, not explicitly stated; so does a given format preclude ISBN inclusion?

I propose that:

(1) We move toward more a standardized citation format in the article, using the "{{cite [book, journal] ..." formats. It's been previously recommended to me by other editors as more accessible (User talk:MONTENSEM#Citation query), and although I haven't always liked it, I've tried to move in that direction. Also,

(2) We include identifying item numbers, like ISBNs.

Have a good one, MONTENSEM (talk) 22:44, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

The citation templates are bloated and unsightly. They invite editors to load up citations with irrelevancies. No academic format includes ISBNs in its citations. The MLA format is perfectly suited to the needs of this article. Trumpetrep (talk) 22:52, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia has an overcategorization problem. Yet, this is its built-in book citation template:

{{cite book |last1= |first1= |author-link1= |last2= |first2= |author-link2= |display-authors= |author-mask1= |author-mask2= |collaboration= |df= |date= |year= |orig-date= |orig-year= |contributor-last1= |contributor-first1= |contributor-link1= |contributor-last2= |contributor-first2= |contributor-link2= |display-contributors= |contributor-mask1= |contributor-mask2= |chapter= |script-chapter= |chapter-url= |chapter-url-access= |trans-chapter= |chapter-format= |contribution= |script-contribution= |contribution-url= |contribution-url-access= |trans-contribution= |contribution-format= |location= |editor-last1= |editor-first1= |editor-link1= |editor-last2= |editor-first2= |editor-link2= |display-editors= |editor-mask1= |editor-mask2= |title= |script-title= |title-link= |url= |url-access= |trans-title= |format= |department= |type= |series= |language= |volume= |interviewer-last1= |interviewer-first1= |interviewer-link1= |interviewer-last2= |interviewer-first2= |interviewer-link2= |display-interviewers= |interviewer-mask1= |interviewer-mask2= |translator-last1= |translator-first1= |translator-link1= |translator-last2= |translator-first2= |translator-link2= |display-translators= |translator-mask1= |translator-mask2= |others= |name-list-style= |edition= |publication-place= |publisher= |publication-date= |minutes= |time-caption= |time= |page= |pages= |at= |no-pp= |arxiv= |asin= |asin-tld= |bibcode= |bibcode-access= |biorxiv= |citeseerx= |doi= |doi-access= |doi-broken-date= |eissn= |hdl= |hdl-access= |isbn= |ismn= |issn= |jfm= |jstor= |jstor-access= |lccn= |medrxiv= |mr= |oclc= |ol= |ol-access= |osti= |osti-access= |pmc= |pmc-embargo-date= |pmid= |rfc= |sbn= |ssrn= |s2cid= |s2cid-access= |zbl= |id= |url-status= |archive-url= |archive-format= |archive-date= |access-date= |via= |quote-page= |quote-pages= |quote= |script-quote= |trans-quote= |mode= |ref= |postscript=}}

Trumpetrep (talk) 23:56, 20 June 2026 (UTC)