Jump to content

Talk:Hector Berlioz/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Pronunciation please?

Preferably IPA? —Keenan Pepper 22:13, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

[berljoz] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.192.57.32 (talk) 11:56, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Dances des sylphes

I'm doubtful of the claim that L'Éléphant from The Carnival of the Animals is derived from Dances des sylphes, for two reasons:

  1. It is called "Ballet des sylphes", not "Dances des sylphes."
  2. Ballet des sylphes doesn't sound much like L'Éléphant to me. --220.237.67.125 08:50, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm investigating this; the Dover reprint of the full score of Carnivale des animaux points out the resemblance to Ballet des sylphes, which it describes is also mixed with "a dash of Mendelssohn's Midsummer Dream Scherzo". I have scores of all three pieces so I'll make an effort to thoroughly compare them ;-) Philip Legge phi1ip@netscape·net 07:49, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
CONFIRMED. The principal theme of L’Éléphant is Saint-Saëns', but the subsidiary theme 16 or so bars into the piece is indeed Berlioz's, and it is the main idea of Ballet des sylphes. Philip Legge phi1ip@netscape·net 00:05, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Divorce from Smithson

I've read that they divorced nine years after the marriage in 1833; no dates were included. On Smithson's article here, the date is given as 1940, and there is a note that parts are taken from Britannica. Anybody have a better idea about the actual date? I'd hate to leave this inconsistency there. the symphony page and Berlioz page have nine years listed, and the Smithson page has 1840.

Berlioz separated from Harriet Smithson in 1844. (That's in the current New Grove article.) There's nothing about a divorce date, but it would be reasonable to infer it would be 1844 or later. Hope that helps! Antandrus (talk) 17:41, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup

I have tagged this article as needing cleanup. I feel that much of it is written in a too-casual style, and also that a number of passages are rather poorly organized. If I have time I will work on it myself, but I encourage others to dive in too! --Wspencer11 (talk to me...) 02:15, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I am in favour of removing the 'potted biography' infobox. This has been done for Frédéric Chopin and I have proposed it for Ludwig van Beethoven. --Kleinzach
I will try to work on this article in the near future. Apart from a basic clean-up, it needs expanding and referencing properly. And yes, get rid of the infobox (but keep the picture). --Folantin 09:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
I've attempted to do this, though the picture is a bit smaller than i woiuld have wished. - Kleinzach 10:15, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


  • This article is so bad and choppy, and I'm such a big fan of Berlioz, that I consider it my personal duty to do a rewrite. I'll post the rewrite on this page, and we can decide if we want to use it instead of the current version. --Chopin-Ate-Liszt! 20:09, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Improvements

Renamed this section to something more useful, as the older question is no longer neccessary. It's pretty apparent that we want to get this article to FA status, and we're almost to the point where every section has been extensively revised (only one or two to go). Once we've done this, the major concern will be sourcing fully - to pre-empt the findings of a review, I've put "citation needed" tags on statements that I cannot source using Google results - they are generally quotes (they were in the original pages that I worked from before I started revising my sections) - if anyone could find a source, or replace the specific parts with something with roughly the same meaning, but sourced, that would be great. Another important thing is to check that all the images are fair use. I uploaded a fair few myself, but I'm not 100% sure that I trust myself to have done it properly.

Main issue we'll encounter when we are happy enough with the article to submit it for FA review - we'll probably get a lot of pressure to condense the article, which will be scraping 100kb by the time it's finished. I don't consider it neccessary to remove anything, as this isn't a gradual accumilation of material that wasn't organised or structured - it's been completely re-written over the past few weeks. It's detailed because Berlioz's life was detailed. Another problem with condensing is this:

If the biography was smaller and the other sections larger, other sections could possibly be moved to new articles (such as "Berlioz as a writer" or whatever), but those sections are much smaller than the biography, and I think that it is unprecedented for there to be a seperate page with a "full" biography, with a cut-down one on the main page with the other articles as an overview. I did exclude as much as I could when writing the biography, but his life was interesting and eventful, and to remove much of it would fail to give an adequate overview of his life, perhaps to the extent of being inaccurate.

Anyway... just a worry I have, hehe... If anybody knows about these things better than me, maybe they could provide reassurance or a work-around the article size problem Lethe 22:07, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, Life and work of Ludwig van Beethoven seems to be a possible model... Lethe 12:29, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Wordinessnessness

There is alot of wordy writing in this article that make it difficult to read and follow. As long as it's okay with everyone, I'll be making edits to try and make the article flow better (without removing or changing any info). If you feel I've degraded the article, feel free to undo my edits, but please leave me a note as to where/why you did so. Thanks---Chopin-Ate-Liszt! 20:49, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Italian Carbonari

Is there any real point to the mention of the Carbonari in the Italy section? It doesn't state any long term effects or influences from the incident. If someone can add some info to it to explain its relevance, that would be very useful. --Chopin-Ate-Liszt! 03:12, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I added it to reinforce the whole "swashbuckling good time" thing, but it is pretty periphery. He did spend some time with them shooting at a target on the ship's deck, talking etc - so it was more than just a "hello", but I didn't add any more to prevent the bio from becoming immoderately long. Lethe 23:13, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

To the attention of Wspencer11 (ref. Berlioz)

The so-called vansalismyou mention was nothing more than helpful corrections on some of the titles, whose French typographic rules you seem to ignore : L'Enfance du Christ, not L'enfance du Christ. Les Nuits d'été, not Les nuits d'été. Just two examples...)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Tiglou (talk • contribs) 19:33, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


Several times his affections were unrequited: Irish Shaespearean actress Harriet Smithson and pianist Madame Pleyel, whom set out to murder while residing in Rome under a Prix de Rome scolarship.

Is this stating that he set out to murder them or that they set out to murder him? As it is stated now it appears to be an incomplete sentance. IE:

Irish Shaespearean actress Harriet Smithson and pianist Madame Pleyel, whom set out to murder while residing in Rome under a Prix de Rome scolarship, ...

That appears to be the subject of the sentance, with an introduction of two new people. But there does not appear to be a predicate. I'm almost positive though that the sentance was supposed to state that someone set out to murder the other(s). Does anyone know the answer?

Robert Lee

He set off at some point with the intention of murdering Marie Moke, who he had been in love with but who was engaged to the piano maker Pleyel (hence "Madame Pleyel"). He was then going to commit suicide. Of course, Berlioz being Berlioz, he probably got drunk, or had too much coffee, or overslept or something, and it never came to pass. I'll try to sensify the article. --Camembert

Dear Camembert,

Somehow I can't quite stomach the idea of R&J as a "secular cantata". It is too sexy for that label. Can we delete that bit and leave it described just as "dramatic symphony"? Also Damnation is staged occasionally (I saw it once at the opera), so it is not really "unstaged", only seldomn so. -- Viajero 15:46 6 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Yeah, "secualar cantata" does sound rather dry, I agree. I just wanted to give some impression of how the peice worked, if you know what I mean. I'll remove it and have another go. --Camembert

A proposal

Here's the real problem with Wikipedia: multiple authors trying to cooperate. Right now the article has little sense of direction. It is organized chronologically, but makes little logical sense. Although, there's plenty of great references and a wealth of facts.

Even the very first section provides a good example:

"...The other two, Nanci and Adèle, remained close to Berlioz throughout his life.[8] Berlioz did not begin to study music until the age of twelve...

It discusses his family, and then, without warning, moves onto his musical studies. There is no transition, no break in the text, or any logical separation of these two completely different aspects of his Early Life. This makes it very difficult to read. By the fault of nobody in particular (in fact I think this has been caused by an overwhelming response to this article, and dozens of users putting there two cents in), the article has become a huge pile of ideas in facts, organised in a manner that leaves much to be desired. I initially began to rewrite some of these, but then realized that the entire article needs to reorganised (you'll notice back in April I vowed to do something similar, but to no effect- the article at the time lacked depth and factual material, which it's now gained). So, here's the proposal:

A user volunteers to rearrange a certain section, so that it makes better sense. (keeping in mind that no facts should be removed or changed)

If enough people do this, then the entire article will flow in a logical, orderly manner.

Allow me to take an initiative by editing the "Italy" section.

(there's also some random instances of present tense in the article, while the rest of it is past)

--Chopin-Ate-Liszt! 02:43, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Indeedie, I was definitely working chronologically and I can see your point (thank you for the other rephrases as well, they are all improvements) - it could definitely be a lot more 'readable'. I'll try to follow your lead, and see if it works out :-) Lethe 12:54, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I finished the Italy section up. You can take a look if you like (I have a feeling some of the links and references got messed up when I transferred the text from MS Word to Wiki) I'll do more this weekend. -At the moment I've got tests in school :+).--Chopin-Ate-Liszt! 21:11, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
I'll fix a few redirects, brackets, etc in it in a minute, but it seems good. The only thing I would suggest changing would be the two very short paragraphs near the end. Lethe 23:46, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Could you check if my current work in progress change to Decade of Productivity improved it much? I found it quite difficult, oddly. Also, what dating format are we going to use? Due to the full rewrite required, I converted them to uniformity using the UK date/month order (opposed to US month/date), and we'll have conflicts between sections if one isn't decided on. Lethe 00:13, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Your work in Midlife is A-okay. I found that section to be the most chaotic, so I can see why you're having difficulty. It's coming along fine though. You're right, we do need consistent dates, so British sounds fine to me (personally I haven't much preference). In reference to the Italy section, I haven't necessarily followed a coherent paragraph structure. Rather, I simply broke the article into sections containing relative information. Instead of combining them, I think we should try to add more information to each section. (Thanks for fixing my links by the way)

Also, my apologies in this rather late response. I've had quite a bit of work on my end lately and haven't had much time for Wiki editing. I might be able to knock out another section this weekend, but we'll see what happens. Happy editing, --Chopin-Ate-Liszt! 01:58, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Multiple Minor Edits

Hi, I was just reading through this article and spotted a bunch of little errors. Most of them were words or sentences written in the present tense instead of the past tense. Have we had an editor whose first language wasn't English perhaps? I fixed all the ones I found. I also edited this sentence, "Fétis would later contribute to the debasement of the reputation of the Gazette when this journal failed and was absorbed by the Gazette, he found himself on the editorial board.[92]" but I don't understand it as it is even with my rewrite. Since the source is a book and not online, I couldn't check it to figure out what was meant by that sentence. Can someone else help with that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.255.202.210 (talk) 07:33, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

That is a rather convoluted sentence! The one about Schumann in between two sentences about French journals is also a bit odd. It essentially means that due to Fétis becoming a member of the editorial board of the Gazette after the Revue Musicale closed down, the Gazette began to adopt the biased and inflammatory style which the Revue cultivated under Fétis. Lethesl 07:01, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

This article is getting a little long

There's a tremendous amount of good material here, so it would be a shame to cut any of it. What about folowing a simmilar format to Sergei Rachmaninoff—namely, a detailed article on Berloiz's life linked to a main article with summaries on his life and work? Jonyungk (talk) 00:27, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I debated that, but wasn't too sure how to do it (to avoid excessive duplication with the extended page, the condensed biography would be vastly outweighed by all the other sections. If you can do it, it sounds like a good idea to me. By the way, thanks for taking up this article, I got totally burnt out on it. Lethesl 19:51, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Lead image

It is not the best choice to have simply a "good likeness" drawing heading this article when great photos of Berlioz exist that show what he truely looked like. I searched Wikimedia Commons and found an excellent cabinet card photo by Franck for the lead image, and moved the drawing into the text. Charvex (talk) 08:44, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I rather like this Nadar photograph http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Berlioz8.gif as it has artistic merit as well as documenting his appearance Lethesl 19:52, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Disproportion here: Les Troyens gets a whole section but not Symphony fantastique??

This doesn't make any sense. Why do we have a huge section of Les Troyens when it already has its own page and the the symphony fantastique is way more famous and important and doesn't have its own section on this page? I think the symphony fantastique should have its own section here and the Les Troyens section should be cut. Boondigger (talk) 05:20, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Good point. To be fair, it was mainly due to the length of the LT took to create, and the consequential impact on his life - once the works section is fleshed out, the SF should have its own sub-section, as it is certainly his most well-known work. If the bio gets its own page, the Les Troyens imbalance won't be a problem, as it'll be on that page. Lethesl 19:55, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Biography Section

The following sentence currently adorns the very end of the Italy subsection: "In November 1832 he returned to Paris to promote his music, after spending 15 months in Italy, nearly killing his former fiancée's family, and discovering a deeper romantic side of himself that would continue to affect his music forever."

I have no idea what this means. If the first part is a reference to his attempted escape to murder Camille Moke & Co., this is already discussed paragraphs earlier. As for the second half, Hector Berlioz of all people had no need to 'discover' his Romantic side; it sprung from him as naturally as Old Faithful springs from the State of Wyoming.

Telos (talk) 04:06, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

In the sentence "At a similar time, he also began to write musical criticism" in the subsection Student life, Paris, "At a similar time" sounds strange. Perhaps it should be changed to "At the same time" or "At about the same time", or "Around the same time", or some such. Mateat (talk) 17:38, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Good point -- I just fixed it. Thanks, Antandrus (talk) 17:41, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

The Berlioz Society www.theberliozsociety.org.uk is a UK based society dedicated to the promotion of interest in the life and works of Hector Berlioz Hickmanbone (talk) 11:01, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Added category

Why do we need a separate category for operas along with one for all his composiitons? --Wspencer11 (talk to me...) 13:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Categories exist for the operas of all composers. Actually it's unusual to link to categories at all in the text but Berlioz doesn't not have a list of works, as far as I can see. Usually we have a list on the biographical page, or a sub-page off it. Any suggestions? - Kleinzach 15:03, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

MEMOIRS: Speaking of adding a category, W should have a separate entry for the memoirs, of which little reference is made in this article. Memoirs is a terrific read - Berlioz would have been just as successful as a writer! Clearly, Berlioz did not suffer fools gladly. This is no surprise, given that many of these fools were people in authority who constantly tried to frustrate his plans. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.80.157.161 (talk) 00:19, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Name

It appears that his full birth name was Louis-Hector Berlioz. See the article by MacDonald in New Grove, "Berlioz, (Louis-) Hector". I've added a footnote to that effect but not changed the article's text. Voceditenore (talk) 07:18, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

New lead

I think that this article needs a longer lead that does better justice to the composer, so I wrote one. Since this is a large change to make, I am posting it here first for feedback. I think it is an improvement, but please let me know. Telos (talk) 08:43, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


Hector Berlioz (December 11, 1803 – March 8, 1869) was a French Romantic composer, music critic, and conductor. For his music, his life, and his stormy relationship with the public, Berlioz has been called the “quintessential Romantic.”

Berlioz's musical oeuvre consists of roughly a dozen large-scale works, most of which are choral, though not his most famous work, the Symphonie Fantastique. This symphony famously tells the story of the composer's desperate unrequited love for the English actress Harriet Smithson – who would later become his wife. Many of his works are notable for their unusual form, and their massive scale: the Requiem is written for over 400 performers, the Te Deum is designed for the acoustics of a grand cathedral, and his opera The Trojans takes approximately four hours to perform. At the other extreme, Berlioz also wrote roughly 50 songs for voice and simple accompaniment.

During his own lifetime, Berlioz was known just as much as a music critic as a composer. He compiled several books out of his best written work, and wrote a Treatise on Instrumentation that would remain an authoritative textbook on the subject for much of the 19th century.

Berlioz is remembered equally for the colorful events of his life, rendered in his entertaining Mémoires. Raised in a small provincial town, he never heard an orchestra until he was nineteen, never mastered an instrument, and was nearly self-taught at composition. His career faced roadblocks from all quarters, from his parents' stern disapproval to his lack of success with the French public. Berlioz frequently lost money conducting concerts of his own music, and went through most of life heavily indebted. As a journalist, his unflinchingly honest criticism of the French musical establishment earned him enemies in the very places, like the Opéra and the Conservatoire, that might have offered him a successful career.

Berlioz was not widely regarded as a great composer until his reputation was rescued in the mid-20th century with the help of writers like Jacques Barzun and the championship of conductors such as Thomas Beecham and Colin Davis. Hector Berlioz is now critically respected, although his only works played by modern orchestras with any regularity are the Symphonie Fantastique and some of his overtures.

Comments
  • The lead should be concise. I find your suggested one much too long. The 1991 Britannica article, written by Jacques Barzun and a model of clarity, has a 3-sentence lead. And his article is fairly long. --Robert.Allen (talk) 10:32, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
    • If everyone could write like Barzun... I don't deny that this would be on the longer side of article openings, but I don't think it's especially out of the ordinary (cf. Mozart, Weber, Bach). It's hard because, as I said, I did this with the whole point of making it longer. I feel like if the average person who hadn't heard of Berlioz looked him up and read only the lead, this is the level of information that would make him minimally conversant. The other problem that, unlike most composers, Berlioz lived a double or even triple life with all his talents. Could you suggest specific things to cut? Telos (talk) 12:02, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
      • I prefer something like the proposed longer lead, which would be more in proportion with the length of the article, following Wikipedia's guidelines on lead paragraphs (see here). The introductory paragraphs should give a summary of the whole article. At the moment, the mention of Berlioz's 50 songs (hardly the most important part of his output) in the lead is really undue weight. --Folantin (talk) 13:18, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
  • After reading the link that Folantin provided, I have to agree that the length would be OK. I do have a couple of specific comments regarding what you have written. According to Barzun, Berlioz was a guitar virtuoso, so your statement that he did not master an instrument would seem to be incorrect. It might be better just to say that he played flute and guitar, but never learned to play the piano. (The latter was used as a reason to deny him a position as Professor of Harmony at the Conservatoire according Cairns vol 2., p. 159, although the man who eventually got it didn't play either, so apparently it was not actually important.) It might be good to list a few more works: besides the Symphonie fantastique, the Requiem, and Les Troyens, I would suggest adding the choral symphony Romeo et Juliette, the dramatic legend La damnation de Faust, and the orchestral song cycle Les nuits d'été. And for conductors who were advocates of his works, the short list would have to include Charles Munch, Rafael Kubelik, and Colin Davis. (Beecham is not currently mentioned in the article.) --Robert.Allen (talk) 07:18, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Berlioz´s Caterory nominated for deletion

Berlioz´s Caterory nominated for deletion: [1] --Nolanus (talk) 15:52, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Fixing Berlioz's tinny orchestrations

Has anyone ever seriously sat down and fixed Berlioz's weird orchestrations, like how Mahler improved Schumann's symphonies etc?

What's this, I hear you cry. Fixing Berlioz's orchestrations? But he was a master orchestrator - all the reference books say so, so it must be true.

All I know is that his music often sounds extraordinarily ... well, tinny is the best adjective I can come up with. Way too much wind (particularly flutes and piccolos), and not enough strings. I'm just hearing the Symphonie fantastique on radio as I type this, and the first movement is exactly as I described - tinny. The Bal movement is not half bad, I must admit. But then it deteriorates again. It could be played by the greatest orchestra the world has ever known but it wouldn't make any difference, it would still sound like a glorified high school orchestra the way Berlioz abuses the instrumentation. Hector "Tinny" Berlioz, I'll call him.

Surely I'm not the first music lover to have these views. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ [your turn] 12:40, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I dunno of anyone who has 'reorchestrated' anything by Berlioz...but I don't see what this has to do with the article, honestly. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 13:32, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
What a strange comment. As I'm sure you know, the consensus opinion is entirely in the other direction. Myself, I find his orchestral writing beyond reproach, and his scores rewarding of endless study. In fact, I would sooner see every other piece in the orchestral repertoire reorchestrated - as you put it, "fixed" - to sound like Berlioz, than your suggestion of making Berlioz sound like everybody else. This isn't just "what the reference books say," either. Plenty of fellow composers venerated him - at least for his orchestration (depressingly, it has been sometimes the only feature of his music found laudable) - off the top of my head, Wagner, Rimsky-Korsakov, R. Strauss. But perhaps you just stumbled upon a recording with some balance/mixing issues? The great Jacques Barzun (probably the greatest Berliozian in history) had this to say about the Berlioz sound:
"His orchestra isn't upholstered; the ear must relish the beautiful sound as it passes, you can't stretch out on it. [The listener] wants continuous, palpable 'beauty' in the softer, melting sense, and what he gets instead is a nervous sinewy texture that takes getting used to: remember your first olive. Each line rings out distinct, unblended." Telos (talk) 00:40, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for that. Most interesting. No, it wasn't a problem with one particular recording, as I've always had this reaction to Berlioz, and I've been listening to his stuff for nigh on 50 years now. I've heard it on record/CD, live in concert, and on radio, but for me it's always the same dissatisfaction with the orchestration. Most of his melodies are OK in themselves (although "Villanelle" from Les nuits d'été is probably the worst and most banal tune ever written in the entire history of music) but the clothing he gives them is just wrong. If all the other composers revered him, why did none of their music ever sound anything like Berlioz's? Why didn't anyone else ever adopt any of his fabulous techniques?
Anyway, as Melodia Chaconne says, this isn't relevant to the article if it turns out I'm a voice crying in the wilderness here. I was just hoping to find similar criticisms that are on the record and can be cited, because I still don't believe I'm the first person to have ever had this response to his orchestral writing. I'm unique, but not that unique.
Happy Bastille Day, M. Berlioz, wherever you are. I do quite like your arrangement of "La Marseillaise", so it's not all bad. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ [your turn] 02:17, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Re: "If all the other composers revered him, why did none of their music ever sound anything like Berlioz's? Why didn't anyone else ever adopt any of his fabulous techniques?"

My impression (in the form of a gloss) is that before Berlioz orchestration was mostly structural and after Berlioz color for its own sake, to put it rather glibly, became quite common. Certainly Berlioz's orchestration was influential not just through his example (his pieces) but also through his historically significant Treatise on Instrumentation. It's hard for me to imagine, by the way, how an orchestration could sound "tinny" even if it tried, whereas it's very easy for me to imagine how a recording could. TheScotch (talk) 11:11, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Per WP:External links, I have removed the recently added:

Wikipedia is not a link farm. The openClassical.com link adds nothing given that we already have:

The UC Davis list is more authoritative and truly complete, while the openClassical.com site explicitly states "openClassical is a work in progress, and we don't yet list all works by Berlioz. Please be sure to check back in the future as we continue to add works." In addition, clicking on each work there brings the reader to multiple ads for recordings of the works at Amazon.com presumably with a click-through profit for the website. Voceditenore (talk) 05:52, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

I added the section :
*Listen to the Works of Hector Berlioz, recordings of most of Berlioz's works
I don't see any links to pages where people can listen to the works of Hector Berlioz. That link doesn't obviously violate WP:external links, so please be more specific with any points of contention.
BigDaddyRhino (talk) 7:31, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
BigDaddyRhino, I see you have re-added your link to openClassical.com under a new description. The "Listen" on that site consists of multiple embedded YouTube videos, most of which are copyright infringements. Please read Wikipedia:External links#Restrictions on linking. I have removed the link. Do not re-add it. If you have any affiliation whatsoever with that site, I strongly suggest you also read these guidelines Voceditenore (talk) 15:52, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
If you wish to add a copyright compliant link, I suggest:
Voceditenore (talk) 15:58, 8 May 2014 (UTC)


If you can find another site where Wikipedia users can listen to Berlioz's works, please add it! Otherwise, I don't see why you are removing the link. The site is using the YouTube API so if the embedded YouTube videos were copyright infringement, they would be taken down by YouTube. I undid your edit. The link you provided lists 8 pieces, whereas the link I provided gives at least 20.
BigDaddyRhino (talk) 16:02, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

I note you have restored it yet again. YouTube is full of copyright violations. They are rarely taken down unless specifically requested. This one (openclassical.com/composer/Hector_Berlioz/work/le_carnaval_romain?play_movie=5afo9GM7Fwc) is a clear copyright infringement from this recording and is one of many. By linking to that site, you are in clear violation of Wikipedia policy. Once again please read Wikipedia:External links#Restrictions on linking

For policy or technical reasons, editors are restricted from linking to the following, without exception:
  1. Material that violates the copyrights of others per contributors' rights and obligations should not be linked. Linking to websites that display copyrighted works is acceptable as long as the website has licensed the work, or uses the work in a way compliant with fair use. Knowingly directing others to material that violates copyright may be considered contributory copyright infringement.[1] If there is reason to believe that a website has a copy of a work in violation of its copyright, do not link to it. Linking to a page that illegally distributes someone else's work casts a bad light on Wikipedia and its editors. This is particularly relevant when linking to sites such as Scribd or YouTube, where due care should be taken to avoid linking to material that violates copyright.

Voceditenore (talk) 16:20, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Citation style and lead

Recently, I've been making a small start on improving the sourcing on this page. However, I find the current citation style somewhat problematic, and feel it would be preferable to adopt an approach per the usual guidelines, broadly in line with conventions used in FA such as Gabriel Fauré and Percy Grainger. I also feel the lead would benefit from judicious expansion, following WP:LEAD. Any objections? If not, I would like to start making changes somewhat gradually. 109.157.86.177 (talk) 10:43, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Why the "Religious views" subsection?

Is it really necessary or appropriate for the Biography section to conclude with a separate subsection devoted to religious POV? (And is it appropriate to give so much weight to the POV of the Catholic Encyclopedia [2], replete with a speculative "what-might-have-been" citation in the footnote?)

Irrespective of his actual beliefs in different phases of his life, Berlioz's personal and artistic responses to religious motifs and associations were often nuanced, and they clearly played complex roles in the life and works of the composer. Editorially, I think it would be better for such themes to emerge organically from the article as a whole. 31.48.175.145 (talk) 10:32, 31 July 2014 (UTC) previously 109.157.86.177

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Hector Berlioz. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:01, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Hector Berlioz/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Comment(s)Press [show] to view →
==Composers Project Assessment of Hector Berlioz: 2009-01-21==

This is an assessment of article Hector Berlioz by a member of the Composers project, according to its assessment criteria. This review was done by Magicpiano.

If an article is well-cited, the reviewer is assuming that the article reflects reasonably current scholarship, and deficiencies in the historical record that are documented in a particular area will be appropriately scored. If insufficient inline citations are present, the reviewer will assume that deficiencies in that area may be cured, and that area may be scored down.

Adherence to overall Wikipedia standards (WP:MOS, WP:WIAGA, WP:WIAFA) are the reviewer's opinion, and are not a substitute for the Wikipedia's processes for awarding Good Article or Featured Article status.

===Origins/family background/studies=== Does the article reflect what is known about the composer's background and childhood? If s/he received musical training as a child, who from, is the experience and nature of the early teachers' influences described?

  • good

===Early career=== Does the article indicate when s/he started composing, discuss early style, success/failure? Are other pedagogic and personal influences from this time on his/her music discussed?

  • good

===Mature career=== Does the article discuss his/her adult life and composition history? Are other pedagogic and personal influences from this time on his/her music discussed?

  • good

===List(s) of works=== Are lists of the composer's works in WP, linked from this article? If there are special catalogs (e.g. Köchel for Mozart, Hoboken for Haydn), are they used? If the composer has written more than 20-30 works, any exhaustive listing should be placed in a separate article.

  • list presumed complete; list should include a bibliography of in-print (or otherwise readily-available) publications.

===Critical appreciation=== Does the article discuss his/her style, reception by critics and the public (both during his/her life, and over time)?

  • good

===Illustrations and sound clips=== Does the article contain images of its subject, birthplace, gravesite or other memorials, important residences, manuscript pages, museums, etc? Does it contain samples of the composer's work (as composer and/or performer, if appropriate)? (Note that since many 20th-century works are copyrighted, it may not be possible to acquire more than brief fair use samples of those works, but efforts should be made to do so.) If an article is of high enough quality, do its images and media comply with image use policy and non-free content policy? (Adherence to these is needed for Good Article or Featured Article consideration, and is apparently a common reason for nominations being quick-failed.)

  • good

===References, sources and bibliography=== Does the article contain a suitable number of references? Does it contain sufficient inline citations? (For an article to pass Good Article nomination, every paragraph possibly excepting those in the lead, and every direct quotation, should have at least one footnote.) If appropriate, does it include Further Reading or Bibliography beyond the cited references?

  • Article has references; significantly, but unevenly, inline-cited; FAC may question reliability of sources.

===Structure and compliance with WP:MOS=== Does the article comply with Wikipedia style and layout guidelines, especially WP:MOS, WP:LEAD, WP:LAYOUT, and possibly WP:SIZE? (Article length is not generally significant, although Featured Articles Candidates may be questioned for excessive length.)

  • Issues with lead; article probably needs splitting; see summary

===Things that may be necessary to pass a Good Article review===

  • Article requires more inline citations (WP:CITE)
  • Article lead needs work (WP:LEAD)

===Summary=== This is a pretty nice, if long, article. It contains a rich and robust biography of the man, including discussions of his musical style, influences, and legacy. I'm going to pick a few nits now.

The article's lead does not really mention Berlioz' writing (beyond the Treatise) at all. Considering the importance (at least within the music community) of his writing, and the fact that it often seems a means of financial support, it seems appropriate to mention that Berlioz was "a composer, conductor, writer, and critic". The lead should also (per WP:LEAD) be a longer summarization of the article.

It would be good for the list of works to include a bibliography of Berlioz' in-print writings, especially the Treatise.

If this article's editors are aiming at an FA candidacy, they may want to consider the reliability of their sources. I have no particular criticism on this, but in some FA reviews I've read, the reviewers ask questions like "Why is this web site you used as a source reliable?"; editors should be aware of this. (I note that editors have been restrained in their use of his Memoirs -- this is a good thing, and it (the restraint) should continue.)

There is clearly enough material here that portions of the article should be carved off. There's probably enough meat to make a "Music of" article (considering the Musical works section has an expand tag on it); the Literary works section might also be splittable, summarized into one modest paragraph. The early years (until he goes to Italy) might also be splittable.

Nice article; B-class, nearing A. Magic♪piano 14:12, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Last edited at 14:12, 21 January 2009 (UTC). Substituted at 17:32, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Composer project review

I've reviewed this article as part of the Composers project review of its B-class articles. This is a fine article; I have some nits to pick with it, and some suggestions for splitting it, since (as mentioned above) it's getting long. The details are on the comments page; questions and comments should be left here or on my talk page. Magic♪piano 14:15, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

(Following WP:DCS, the linked page above has been moved to §Assessment comment.) -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:16, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Hector Berlioz. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:55, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Hector Berlioz. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:54, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hector Berlioz. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:00, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hector Berlioz. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:53, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "In December 1999, for example, a U.S. District Court in Salt Lake City, Utah granted a preliminary injunction against a religious organization that maintained a Web site that established links to other sites containing material that infringed on the plaintiff's copyright. The court ruled that the links constituted "contributory infringement" and ordered them removed." (American Library Association: Hypertext Linking and Copyright Issues) However, this remains a developing area of case law.

Possible FAC

I'm hoping to get the Berlioz article up to GA or FA standard, to join Alkan, Bizet, Boulez, Debussy, Josquin, Fauré, Massenet, Messiaen, Messager, Offenbach, Poulenc, Ravel and Saint-Saëns. To this end I propose, as usual pre-FAC, to remove all statements referenced inadequately or not at all, and this is a note to ask anyone with an interest in any contributions to check that they are backed by a WP:RS. Getting the Life section to FAC standard will take time and effort but should not present any unusual problems. The Works section could be trickier, given the way Berlioz has divided critical opinion, and if anyone would be interested in joining me in upgrading it I'd be very pleased. Tim riley talk 19:15, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

I've had a shot at this, and with an eye to further improvements am taking it to peer review, where all comments will be gratefully received. Tim riley talk 09:41, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Thank goodness. You improved it immensely already. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:31, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

After a wonderfully thorough peer review (for which grateful thanks to everyone who contributed), the article is now a featured article candidate. If anyone cares to look in, the candidacy is at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hector Berlioz/archive1. Tim riley talk 12:47, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Capitalisation

I see an IP (from Paris if the reporting tools are correct) has changed the capitalisation of, e.g. La damnation de Faust and L'enfance du Christ to La Damnation de Faust and L'Enfance du Christ. I've changed it back to the approved FA version for now, but I'd be glad of people's thoughts on it. French practice on the capitalisation of titles varies capriciously. Of the main sources for the article, Hugh Macdonald in the Grove article on HB and Julian Rushton in The Music of Berlioz print La damnation de Faust and L'enfance du Christ; D Kern Holoman in his Berlioz and Peter Bloom in The Cambridge Companion to Berlioz print La Damnation de Faust and L'Enfance du Christ. (Cairns avoids the issue by translating the titles into English, but when obliged to use the French he is with Grove and Rushton – Les nuits d'été). Our en.wiki articles on both works follow the Grove line, but I see that the French Wikipédia articles capitalise Damnation and Enfance, and our en.wiki manual of style seems to agree (sort of). Has anyone got any views on the matter? Tim riley talk 22:01, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Yikes, and I was always "certain" that lower case was right, because French -- is that not true? Have we got an expert watching this page? (If there is such a thing on capitalisation rules in French?) I have changed these myself in a few places, from upper to lower case. Antandrus (talk) 23:31, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
We also have MOS:FOREIGNTITLE, which has "For historical works, follow the dominant usage in modern, English-language, reliable sources." Antandrus (talk) 23:39, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
I always ask LouisAlain for French, who said capital Damnation, but wasn't heard last time around, because The Grove knows better than the French. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:49, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
G. Arendt's addtion duly noted, Tim riley talk 22:43, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

The usage of the major publishers in France (e.g. Gallimard or the NRF) is –or was– to add a capital to the first word (usually a substantive) following an initial definite article. Thus, La Damnation de Faust and L'Enfance du Christ. (That Faust and Christ have a capital is for another reason: they are proper names.) This usage unfortunately is disappearing.

A very special and interesting case is the "Prelude to the Afternoon of a Faun". L'Après-midi d'un faune, the title of Mallarmé's poem, for the reason stated above, has (or should have) a capital at both the definite article (L') and at the substantive following it (Après-midi). The title therefore should read L'Après-midi d'un faune. Since Debussy's Prelude is a prelude to this poem, its title should be written Prélude à L'Après-midi d'un faune – this has been my own usage as director for close to twenty years of one of the main journals of music theory in France. Many people do not seem to realize that the title of the poem includes the definite article and write Prélude à l'Après-midi d'un faune, as if the poem's title was Après-midi d'un faune. – Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 21:49, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. That's very helpful. I'm fine with it either way -- as long as we're consistent within the article, of course -- how consistent are we within en: Wikipedia? I wonder. At any rate now I think I know why an editor from an IP address geolocating to Paris was changing it. Antandrus (talk) 22:05, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
Thank you, Hucbald.SaintAmand. Like Antandrus, I'm biddable either way, and this input is most helpful. Tim riley talk 22:20, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
According to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/France and French-related articles, there are two different standards for capitalization in French titles, and the one now endorsed by the English Wikipedia is no longer the sentence-case version (as was formerly the case). Hucbald has brought up an extremely interesting complication, which would apply in either of the two styles. The issue, however, is not what French usage regards as correct (since there are two conflicting standards) but, rather, which of these standards is to be followed on English Wikipedia. Like Antandrus, I do not prefer one style over the other, but it seems clear that the Powers That Be have made a decision, and we should abide by it. Until, of course, the PTB change their mind.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 07:27, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for that addition – most helpful. Tim riley talk 08:27, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

The Règles typographiques en usage à l'Imprimerie nationale (I quote the third edition, 1990, which is not the last one), supposed to be the main authority in this matter, specifies that the definite article takes the capital if it indisputably belongs to the title, and adds that this capital may disappear if the article is contracted, for instance if one wrote of "l'auteur du Rouge et le Noir". It does not take the capital (nor the italic) if the title is shortened (le Mariage, le Sacre). Adjectives or adverbs between the definite article and the first substantive also take a capital (Les Cinq Dernières Minutes). In an enumeration of substantives, they all take the capital, but not the repeated definite article: La Répétition ou l'Amour puni, Don Juan ou le Festin de pierre. But these Règles also show that I was wrong in my writing of the title of Debussy's Prelude: "If the title includes another title [...] the preceeding rules are applied separately to both titles (with the reservation already mentioned concerning the initial article of the second title): Le Mariage de Figaro ou la Folle Journée" (where La Folle Journée, the second title included in the first, looses the capital of its initial article, but keeps a capital at the adjective before the substantive). Debussy's Prelude therefore should read Prélude à l'Après-midi d'un faune; I have been wrong for decades.

Isn't French a beautiful language? — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 14:57, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Ah, yes, thank you. (Every time I think I understand French I discover I was wrong.) Antandrus (talk) 15:06, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
I too begin to doubt, even although it is my native language (or so I think). But isn't that the pleasure of languages? Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 19:28, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
Quite so (though it would be a rash Anglophone who criticised Francophones for inconsistency, at which we are surely world champions). But how to take the matter forward? I suggest we leave this thread open for a few days and then, unless anything comes up to suggest otherwise, apply the capital letters to La Damnation de Faust, L'Enfance du Christ, Les Nuits d'été, et al, including La Mort d'Orphée, La Mort de Sardanapale and La Nonne sanglante. I suppose we ought to seek consensus to changing the titles of the en.wiki articles similarly. Does this seem a sensible way to proceed? Tim riley talk 19:55, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
That works for me. Certainly we can start small, i.e. with this article.
I wonder if this is worth a mention at a WikiProject, especially before expanding beyond this article. Does anyone know a way to list all the articles on English Wikipedia that have French titles (music, books, paintings, ...) I'm curious to know how consistent we have been project-wide. Antandrus (talk) 20:39, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
If there is a way to do this, it would be very helpful. As to the issue of consistency, keep in mind that the Wikipedia style on this matter changed fairly recently (I don't recall exactly when, but perhaps two or three years ago). Before that time, I can recall seeing changes made on several articles from this more complicated to the simpler sentence-case style. I only became aware of the policy change after seeing several changes in the opposite direction. As far as I am aware, there has been no organized effort to bring French titles into line with the new style position.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:56, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
The problem is that typographic usages are disappearing, even among the best publishers in France. Whatever we do, at some point French titles will be written with only the first word capitalized. The later the better, I think, but it is a lost battle. — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 06:01, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
We seem to be done here. I'll give it a day or two more just in case and then apply the capitalisation ("La Damnation" not "La damnation" etc) as discussed above. Where we go more widely with this question of upper and lower case after that, "I put it to you and I leave it to you", as Doolittle says in Pygmalion. Tim riley talk 19:17, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
I'm sure this from Hucbald.SaintAmand is fine. In fact I am terribly lazy; I generally put what my reliable source says then wait for a rules policeperson to come along and change it. For certain topics good non-French reliable sources are hard to find.Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 19:55, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
Capitalisation as discussed now applied throughout (I hope, but if anyone spots one I've missed, please dive in and change it). Thank you to all Wiki-colleagues who have contributed to this discussion. Tim riley talk 20:17, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
To Jerome, thank you for spotting and changing the ones I've missed, and to anyone following the above, I've started the ball rolling at Talk:La damnation de Faust#Capitalisation: a start, at least, failing any centralised discussion. Comments welcome, naturally. Tim riley talk 23:00, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
You are very welcome. This is a vexing business. I trust that the change of Wikipedia policy will in the end prove fruitful. I have quailed, I'm afraid, at adding Les francs-juges to the very long backlog of requests for overriding redirects. Perhaps someone will eventually notice.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 07:31, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Postscript – I am increasingly convinced that the French ways of capitalising titles are deliberately contrived to send the innocent Anglo-Saxon round the virage. Having, I thought, got a handle on them from the above I had cause to look at Le Ménestrel's obituary for Sir Arthur Sullivan printed in November 1900, and lo, we find le Contrebandier, di Ballo, la Tempête, les Joyeuses Commères de Windsor, le Marchand de Venise, le Mikado, and la Rose de Perse. Not a capitalised Le or La in sight. I'm not proposing anything – merely expostulating. Tim riley talk 10:44, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

That's OK, Tim, get it off of your chest. You will feel so much better.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 19:05, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
Thank you, sir! But, well, you know, I mean, really! Tim riley talk 19:27, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Lead image 2

CrazyBoy826 has replaced the existing lead image with an 1860 photo by Nadar. It is an excellent picture - I don't think I've ever seen it before - and CrazyBoy's edit summary is a model of courteous tact. All the same, my preference is for the old one, because it is a very familiar image of Berlioz in his creative prime. What do others think? Tim riley talk 21:23, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree that we should go back to the image of Berlioz in his prime. This is a better representation of the composer for a Lead image. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:04, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
I also agree. In spite of the claim of "more color", the newer portrait has a rather grim, underlit quality. The earlier one has much better shadow scale. And what does "based on a photograph by Nadar" mean? A painting executed in 2014? And by whose hand was that painting made? The original Nadar photograph, if available, would be a valuable addition to the article, but not at the top of the page.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:26, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
I concur that the original image of Berlioz as a younger man is the more suitable one here to use as a lead image. The new image that has been put here in its place is excellent, but in the interests of seeing Berlioz in his prime, this just misses the mark. CassiantoTalk 05:48, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Missing infobox

How come the article doesn't have an infobox, like other musicians? LeonardoKH (talk) 11:23, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

We have generally avoided them for Featured Articles on composers. Experience has shown that it is not possible to find suitable info-box material that is encyclopaedic, objective and meaningful for such articles. What could one put in an i-box for Berlioz? Occupation: composer. Known for: composing. Not very helpful to the poor reader and making Wikipedia look a bit silly. Tim riley talk 12:32, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
"What could one put in an i-box for Berlioz?"
His birth date, his birth place, his occupation, his best known works, his alma mater, his death date, his death place, where he's buried, etc. That seems like a fairly detailed infobox to me.
I never really understood this logic. All this information is already in the article, so it should be suitable for an infobox no? Pac-Man PHD (talk) 00:12, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Prix de Rome

Hi Tim riley i added the paragraph about the Prix de Rome as i think this is an important prize that Berlioz tried to get 4 times so there is relevance to add it and who he interacted with at the time. However, instead of a deletion, i can shorten the paragraph. how about the following:

"Berlioz hired Louise Dabadie her to sing his version of Hermine for the 1828 Prix de Rome and was awarded the second prize. He hired her again in 1829 for La mort de Cléopâtre. She sang in the qualification round but couldn't make it to the final round. Berlioz failed to win either first or second prize" --Charc2018 (talk) 18:20, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

To my mind this belongs in the singer's article but is pretty irrelevant to Berlioz's. Your first sentence makes it appear that his choice of singer affected the result of the competition, which none of the sources even suggest, as far as I recall. Let us see what other interested editors think. Tim riley talk 18:25, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hector_Berlioz/Archive_1&oldid=1189365028"