Talk:Ricercar
Add topicLatest comment: 1 month ago by TheScotch in topic Elaboration
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
Inappropriate for anything; much less an "encyclopedia"
[edit]"For cars referred to as "ricers", see Rice burner."
Wow. And Wikpedia has the nerve to ask for money. SMH. 2601:600:A480:4C20:7064:6796:6EAB:939C (talk) 03:45, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
- I can see your point. Our page Wikipedia:HATMISSPELL covers the issue somewhat, saying that "These hatnotes should only be used when the ambiguity exists for a significant portion of the readership". Is that the case here? Maybe not, the IP doesn't seem to think so (I am interpretting) and I think it is a stretch. Maybe it is a language issue for Japanese speakers, but then again do they make up a significant portion of readership? Pending further discussion I have no problem removing it. Commander Keane (talk) 04:11, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
Elaboration
[edit]The article needs to elaborate on the main definition (historical precursor of the fugue). In particular, it needs to discuss the structural feature most closely associated with the form, that of successive fugal expositions of different fugal subjects. Somehow it manages to ignore this aspect completely. It also needs to point out that “ricercar” and “ricercare” are alternate forms of the word. I learned “ricercare” in music school, and I don’t appreciate its being ignored. TheScotch (talk) 11:05, 31 August 2026 (UTC)