Jump to content

Talk:Kaikhosru Shapurji Sorabji/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Copyedit request for GOCE

Toccata quarta, as you have questions of your own, I'll create a separate section for your questions that I will try to answer as best I can.

Tenryuu's questions

Lead

  • As one of the 20th century's most prolific piano composers [...] Definitely descriptive, but without using "piano", would he still be considered one of the 20th century's most prolific composers? The next sentence goes into depth about his piano works, so it seems a little redundant to mention that he is a "prolific piano composer". —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:49, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
Tenryuu: This possibility occurred to me recently so and it would be consistent with the article proper (see "Roberge estimates that..."). I have some additional ideas relating to this passage and the lead, which I will put in the section "Toccata quarta's questions". Toccata quarta (talk) 13:13, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
Discussion elsewhere. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:41, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
  • In the 1950s, he left London, eventually settling in the village of Corfe Castle, Dorset. The sentence implies that he toured around England for a while before settling down in Corfe Castle? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:49, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
Many things are not known about Sorabji's life, such as when he moved into The Eye. You may have a look here, to see that there are plenty of question marks around so "simple" an issue as his places of residence. Toccata quarta (talk) 13:13, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 Done. Handy source! —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:41, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
As a composer. Toccata quarta (talk) 13:13, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 Done. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:41, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
  • While he was attracted to modernist aesthetics at first, he dismissed large portions of the established and contemporary repertoire, drawing instead on a variety of composers. He "drew on" a variety of composers to do what? Create his own repertoire? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:49, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
To develop his own style (musical language) and approach to composition. Toccata quarta (talk) 13:13, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 Done. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:41, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Orchestral, chamber and organ pieces number among them, but his main expressive medium was the piano. Is it more important to note that he composed orchestral, chamber, and organ pieces, or that he primarily composed for the piano? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:49, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
Most of Sorabji's works are written for the piano or feature an important piano part. I wanted to have that information in the second half of the sentence, as it relates directly to the next sentence (about composer-pianists). The first part of the sentence gives the reader some information on Sorabji's musical production. Toccata quarta (talk) 13:13, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 Done. I switched them around. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:41, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
See my comments above. Toccata quarta (talk) 13:13, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
Discussion elsewhere. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:41, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
  • His absorption of diverse influences like Busoni, Debussy and Szymanowski [...] Pops up several times in the article. Not a really big thing and it might not even need to be changed with the wikilink, but I'm thinking of adding musicians' first names as well for the uninitiated, as in Frédéric Chopin. The MoS doesn't seem to be clear in MOS:FULLNAME. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:49, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
Judging by various classical music FAs, it does seem best to spell out the names in full, at least when they appear for the first time. Two issues, though:
1) If a name should be linked in its first appearance in the lead and its first appearance in the article proper, do we use the same logic for full names? (Indeed, Sorabji's name is reproduced in full in the lead and in the beginning of the biography.)
2) The Sorabji lead is a bit unusual (compared to the classical music FAs I checked) in that it includes many names and the full ones could turn it very long. In particular, the name Charles-Valentin Alkan could make it feel a bit "heavy". Toccata quarta (talk) 13:13, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
I'd say that since Sorabji is the actual subject of the article, referring to him by his full name at the start of the Biography section would make sense. Since the others have been mentioned prior I don't think there's any need to do so again. In regards to names I'd say to probably follow WP:COMMONNAME. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:41, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
I have just changed the text, so that the first appearance of each name in the lead and in the article proper presents the individual's full name. Toccata quarta (talk) 14:49, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Biography

Roberge (2020) says, "Sorabji's studies had prepared him to take the 'Kondo Matric', that is, the Matriculation, an examination needed for formal admission into a university. ... Though he obtained the Matriculation, Sorabji did not pursue further studies. Philip Heseltine's 'ghastly' accounts of public school and university life convinced the twenty-two-year-old musician that he had been fortunate to escape both" (p. 50). Toccata quarta (talk) 13:13, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 Done. Leaving as is. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:41, 15 September 2020 (UTC)


  • Early editions of his compositions were published with his father's financial aid, and their modernist idiom, increasing dimensions and technical demands baffled critics and audiences. Idiom should be defined either by a wikilink or explicitly on here, as the layman's definition of [a]n established expression whose meaning is not deducible from the literal meanings of its component words, often peculiar to a given language doesn't seem appropriate. What does "dimensions" mean in this context? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:49, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
As suggested, a link to Wiktionary might be an option. For the record, searching on Google yields results such [1] – not exactly a bad source. If that does not work, just use "modernist style". Toccata quarta (talk) 13:13, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
"Dimensions" refers to length/duration. I would say this is common musical jargon. Toccata quarta (talk) 13:13, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 Done Switching "idiom" to "style" and added "durations" parenthetically as a definition; neither Wikipedia's dimension disambiguation page nor Wiktionary's entry seem to use it in that sense. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )


It's Sorabji's piece. I thought "his own piece" avoided potential ambiguity, but I guess not. See also this comment (paragraph starting with "Yes, both the third"). I suppose a redlink might be the best solution for now, as the piece probably meets GNG. Toccata quarta (talk) 13:13, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 Done. Moved it around; should be less ambiguous. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )
  • Sorabji first played his music publicly in 1920 and he performed his works in the UK and abroad over the next decade. He went overseas to other countries? Reading further down it seems that it seems his performances were contained in Europe? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:49, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
He played several times in the UK, in Austria (once) and in France (once). There is also Scotland, but those concerts are discussed in detail later in the paragraph and I believe it was part of the UK at the time anyway. Toccata quarta (talk) 13:13, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 Done. Simplified it to "Europe", unless there's a need to say he predominantly performed in the British Isles. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )
  • Sorabji joined Chisholm's Active Society for the Propagation of Contemporary Music soon after its creation and met him in Glasgow when he premiered his Piano Sonata No. 4 on 1 April 1930. Pronouns are getting ambiguous, but I think Sorabji was the one who played Piano Sonata No. 4, right? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:49, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
Yes, Sorabji wrote the piece and performed it there. Toccata quarta (talk) 13:13, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 Done. Did some rearranging. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:41, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Yes. Toccata quarta (talk) 13:13, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 Done. Left as is.
  • On 10 March 1936 in London, pianist John Tobin gave a partial reading of Opus clavicembalisticum. Is this a concert? Why did Tobin specifically give a "partial reading"? He didn't play the piece partially? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:49, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
Yes, it was a concert. "Reading of" is standard musical jargon, but I suppose the text ought to specify it took place in a concert. (Also, I see you put "attended the concert" a few sentences later anyway.) Tobin played the work's Pars prima. I could put "first part", but that could be interpreted as referring to the work's first movement, and for some reason, I did not want to clutter the passage with further Latin. Toccata quarta (talk) 13:13, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 Done. If the amount that was played is uncertain, "portion" should be enough. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:41, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
I quote Roberge (2020): "That critics publicly questioned the validity of his music because of a reading stretched to undue proportions was a severe blow to him. ... Sorabji thus saw no other choice but to withdraw from the musical world and to limit his entourage to trusted people." (p. 233) Toccata quarta (talk) 13:13, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 Done. Did some more paraphrasing. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:41, 15 September 2020 (UTC)


  • This was not without precedents and even his first printed scores bore a note reserving the right of performance. Slightly edited. Although correctly used, "antecedents" is probably less familiar to readers than "precedents". Why does it matter if his scores have notes reserving if it wasn't enforceable? It also seems a little disconnected after coming off of he discouraged others from playing his music. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:49, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
It's part of the discussion of how the "ban" came into being. Roberge (2020), in his section on the ban, writes, "Another matter of concern for Sorabji was that his works would not be seen or heard in England, the country he loathed above all others. As early as 1916 he wrote that 'under no circumstance' would he allow his Concerto [no. 1] pour piano et grand orchestre to be published in England. He obviously changed his mind, because his fifth such work became available in 1923; on the other hand, by 1930, he decided never 'to permit performances [...] anywhere in these islands in its orchestral form—as indeed of any work of mine involving an orchestra. It is for me the only possible position to take up.' He also clearly expressed his aversion to England as a performance venue." (pp. 231–232) Toccata quarta (talk) 13:13, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 Done. Leaving it (relatively) as is. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:41, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Roberge (2020) says, "Sorabji wrote many of his studies in difficult wartime conditions. Bombings by the German Luftwaffe had begun in September 1940 and ended with the great raid of 10 May, only to resume in June 1944 with V1 flying bombs and V2 rockets forcing Londoners to spend nights in air raid shelters and underground stations." (p. 280) Toccata quarta (talk) 13:13, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 Done. Switched empty to evacuated. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:41, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
  • This has been described as a parallel to his distancing from the world of music. I'm not seeing the association of how building the house leads to distancing himself from the music world. I'm guessing it's because it became his new place to be a hermit? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:49, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
Owen writes, "The 'ban' is perhaps best seen as an example of musical escapism that preceded Sorabji's corporeal escapism – that is, his moving from London to Corfe Castle" (p. 26). Corfe Castle was/is a small village, far away from the center of musical life in England (London). The article gives some further information on his general reclusiveness in the section "Social life". Toccata quarta (talk) 13:13, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 Done. Leaving as is. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:41, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
See my comment above. You also put in the article a note saying "Could be more neutral". Perhaps, but that's more or less what happened (Roberge [2020] says, "[Sorabji] was the object of a profound admiration by his close friends—and relished it. Let me know how it could be reworded. Toccata quarta (talk) 13:13, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
Discussion elsewhere. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:41, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Holliday began to organise the presentation of a letter inviting Sorabji to make recordings of his own music. Did Holliday write the entire letter and have some of Sorabji's other admirers sign it, or did they collaboratively write it together? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:49, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
I'm not sure about the authorship (and I don't believe the sources are particularly clear on it), but it begins with the words "We the undersigned" and concludes with a list of the names of the signatories. What is certain is that the project was Holliday's initiative. Toccata quarta (talk) 13:13, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 Done. Leaving as is. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:41, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
"Sorabjiana" is what the reference (Roberge) uses. Toccata quarta (talk) 13:13, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 Done. I'll tentatively leave it in quotation marks. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:41, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Gentieu set up a mock society (the Society of Connoisseurs) to mask the financial investment on his part, but Sorabji suspected what the actual state of affairs was. Wording is awkward. Gentieu set up the society to mask his financial contribution, and Sorabji saw through his ploy? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:49, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
Going by their correspondence, we know Sorabji suspected that the Society was a hoax. Toccata quarta (talk) 13:13, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 Done. Just going to use "hoax".
Agreed. Toccata quarta (talk) 13:13, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 Done. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:41, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
See my comments above. Toccata quarta (talk) 13:13, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
Discussion elsewhere. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:41, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
This is relatively common musical jargon (see for example [2]). Here, it means Sorabji stopped performing his music in public, not that he ceased to attend concerts. Toccata quarta (talk) 13:13, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
The context of "platform" appears to be a setting where concerts are held, but I'm fine with leaving it if that's the case (might be okay with an inline definition?); I think something like He withdrew from performing in public for the rest of his life would work just as well. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:41, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Well, it's also used in a general sense (e.g. "Viktor Bijelovic has already accumulated considerable experience on the concert platform both as a solo pianist as well as a chamber musician" from [3]). I leave the choice up to you. Toccata quarta (talk) 07:09, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 Done. I'll leave it as is. I think the average reader should be able to glean the context from it. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:43, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
  • His activity as music critic also peaked, and in 1938, Oxford University Press became the selling agent for his published works until his death in 1988. As far as I can tell, "selling agent" is prevalently used in real estate parlance, and the wikilink for it redirects to the "Real estate broker" article. Would Oxford University Press have been just an agent? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:49, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
Perhaps it's wrong, but this is what Roberge (2020) uses: "Oxford University Press becomes the selling agent for all of his published music" (p. xliii). It also appears on p. 36 of Rapoport's book. Toccata quarta (talk) 13:13, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
Is it similar to Hal Leonard LLC? Would "publisher" be accurate? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:41, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
No; Roberge (2020) is explicit on this: "the prestigious press never published his works, which had been issued under various imprints; it worked simply as an agent. Sorabji became associated with this prestigious publisher through his friend Norman Peterkin, who had been working there as a sales manager in the music department for more than ten years. He was instrumental in having Sorabji sign, on 15 July 1938, an agreement according to which the Press, on 1 October, would become the selling agent for all of his published music." (p. 237; emphasis mine) Toccata quarta (talk) 07:09, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 Done. I'll remove "selling" so that it lines up more with the second emphasised phrase. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )
  • After his largest work, the Messa grande sinfonica (1955–61), which covers 1,001 pages of orchestral score [...] Is mentioning that it has 1,001 pages of score necessary? The sentence already has a lot of commas in it. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:49, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
The text mentions that this is his largest work, but it is in fact his largest score; several of Sorabji's keyboard works are longer. An orchestral score of 100 pages will almost always take up less time in performance than a 100-page piano score. Also, I specified that it is an orchestral score because those tend to be large (vertically speaking). These things might not be obvious to non-musicians, so perhaps they could be worded more clearly. How about After the Messa grande sinfonica (1955–61), which covers 1,001 pages of orchestral score and is his largest score...? (Unfortunately, "score" gets repeated.) Toccata quarta (talk) 13:13, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 Partly done. I'm assuming "largest composition" would be accurate, so I've written it as his largest composition that comprises 1,001 pages of orchestral score. How's it look? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:41, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Well, it still remains a bit misleading ("duration vs. size of the score"). I'm thinking of going for "show don't tell" and deleting "largest composition". Even a non-composer reading the text will realize you don't produce a 1,001-page score by fooling around and procrastinating. :-) Toccata quarta (talk) 07:22, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
I decided to implement this change right away. Toccata quarta (talk) 07:24, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
checkmark Done by requester. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:43, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Personal life

  • He planted more than 250 trees around his house and had a number of minatory notices affixed to it, with warnings against uninvited visitors. "Miniatory" is a very rare word to use. Were the notices not on the level of "threatening"? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:49, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
This expression is used by Roberge (2020). If you want to see how harsh (or not) they were, they are reproduced here, in the section "Plates affixed to various parts outside The Eye (Corfe Castle)". See also [4] for a photo. Toccata quarta (talk) 13:13, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 Done. They appear to be on the level of "no trepassing". —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:43, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
The point of Roberge's discussion (which the section is largely based on) is that the process was protracted, which played a role in forging/strengthening the bond between Sorabji and his mother. Roberge (2020) writes, "Another reason for the close bond must have been the sympathy resulting from their having been abandoned by Shapurji Sorabji. The long process that led in 1949 to the court decision declaring invalid the bigamous marriage that he had contracted must have been a source of preoccupation for both mother and son." (p. 308) Toccata quarta (talk) 13:13, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 Partly done. Would it be appropriate to say that Roberge believes that their bond started to strengthen when they found out Shapurji was married to another woman? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )
Yes, that works fine. Incidentally, in the passage Roberge believes that the bond between Sorabji and his mother, I think "Kaikhosru" should be used instead of "Sorabji", just to be consistent. (However, see also a related note I put in section "Rewritten passages".) Toccata quarta (talk) 12:11, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 Done. Thanks for catching that. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:51, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
  • His interest in extra-sensory perception led him to join the Society for Psychical Research in the early 1930s, and in 1922, he met Aleister Crowley, an event Sorabji found disappointing and caused him to dismiss Crowley as a "fraud" and "the dullest of dull dogs". I can see why the sentence is structured the way it is, but maybe it should be done chronologically or reorganised altogether? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:49, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
OK. Let me know what are the options. Toccata quarta (talk) 13:13, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
question mark Suggestion I'm thinking this: In 1922, Sorabji met Aleister Crowley, whom he found disappointing; he dismissed Crowley as a "fraud" and "the dullest of all dogs". His interest in extra-sensory perception led him to join the Society for Psychical Research in the early 1930s. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:43, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Thank you, that can be used. Toccata quarta (talk) 10:55, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 Done. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:51, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Music

  • After an exposition presenting a subject and between one and four countersubjects [...] Weird use of the gerund ("presenting"); it makes it appear that something should be right after "countersubjects". Is it alright to switch presenting to presents? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:49, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
If it makes things clearer, "presenting" means "introducing". If you want to use "that presents", that sounds fine to me. Toccata quarta (talk) 13:13, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 Done. Using "introduces" instead. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )
  • It is followed by a stretto and leads to a section featuring augmentation and a thickening of lines into chords. Slightly edited. Is the order: thematic material → stretto → section, or thematic material → section → stretto? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:49, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Interludes and moto perpetuo-type sections link larger movements together and make appearances in Sorabji's later fugues, like in the Sixth Symphony for Piano (1975–76), whose "Quasi fuga" alternates fugal and non-fugal episodes Emphasis in original. I'm proposing to rearrange the first part to Interludes and moto perpetuo-type sections appear in Sorabji's later fugues to link larger movements together [...] Does "episode" have a special meaning in music? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:49, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
The proposed change alters the meaning of the passage. "Link larger movements together" means you can have something like nocturnal movement – interlude (also a separate movement) – fugue (another movement). I'm not aware of any encyclopedic definition of "musical episode", but it just means a shorter segment of a piece, and definitely shorter than a movement. I used "episodes" mainly because I wanted to avoid repeating "fugues" or "interludes" in the sentence. If it's ambiguous, "sections" could work just as well. Toccata quarta (talk) 13:13, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 Done. Just changing "episodes" to "sections". —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:43, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
It means "harmonic language". Toccata quarta (talk) 13:13, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
I have rewritten the passage and removed mention of a "harmonic idiom". Toccata quarta (talk) 14:39, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
checkmark Done by requester. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )
  • According to Habermann, it manifests itself in the following ways: highly supple and irregular rhythmic patterns, abundant ornamentation, an improvisatory and timeless feel, frequent polyrhythmic writing and the vast dimensions of some of his compositions. This is all in regards to Sorabji's work and not in general? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:49, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
I must be being dense, as I don't understand your question. Toccata quarta (talk) 13:13, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 Done. Scratch that. All these descriptors are being applied to "his compositions", so it seems Habermann was talking about Eastern music in regards to Sorabji and not in a general sense. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )
In my experience, this is a common expression: "set a poem to music" (513,000 Google results for this specific string), etc. See also [5] (definition 29). Toccata quarta (talk) 13:13, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 Done. Leaving as is. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:43, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
I suppose it is the same, though I'm not an expert. Toccata quarta (talk) 13:13, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 Done. I'll switch it over, as numerology is defined as any belief in the divine or mystical relationship between a number and one or more coinciding events, which seems appropriate given Sorabji's interest in the occult. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:43, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
  • It frequently uses triadic harmonies and bitonal combinations, and it does not seek to avoid tonal references. That's personification; is it enough to just say it does not avoid tonal references? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:49, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
Yes, that looks OK to me. Toccata quarta (talk) 13:13, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 Done. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:43, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Good catch. Strictly speaking, the stretto precedes the "section". While every Sorabji fugue is different, the general trend is for the augmentation and thickening to start seeping into the stretto, which is expected to be contrapuntally stricter. As the counterpoint becomes freer and less strict, the augmentation and thickening become more common and come to dominate the texture. Toccata quarta (talk) 13:13, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 Done. Switched "and" to "that". —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )
See [6] for a list. For the most part, these are excerpts from works, possible themes, tryouts of themes, etc. Toccata quarta (talk) 13:13, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 Done. Using a semicolon. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )
  • It exhibits particularly the influence of Godowsky, specifically in its polyphony and its use of polyrhythms and polydynamics. I'm having trouble parsing what "it" refers to previously: his writing? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:49, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
His writing for the piano (the way he wrote for the instrument). Toccata quarta (talk) 13:13, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 Done. Thanks for the clarification. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:43, 16 September 2020 (UTC)


I'd say "output" is fairly common jargon in musical circles, but if it must be changed, I would use described by Habermann as the best of his music. I tend to be wary of using "works" when talking about Sorabji, because it could be taken as a reference to his writings. Incidentally, "published works" would be problematic and inaccurate; Nocturne, "Jāmī", for example, was recorded commercially several years before it was published. Toccata quarta (talk) 15:55, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
question mark Suggestion How about this: what if "output" was enclosed in quotation marks to attribute it to Habermann? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:43, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Habermann's original quote reads, Undoubtedly, the nocturnes are the most successful and beautiful of Sorabji's compositions (emphasis added). I guess the portion in italics could be quoted in place of "the best of his output" (though I'm concerned about having "Sorabji's" appear twice in the sentence). Toccata quarta (talk) 11:18, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 Done. We can get away with a little bit of editorialising. I'll assume the quoted material is from the source already supplied. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:51, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Sorabji achieved this in part by using widely spaced chords rooted in triadic harmonies and pedal points in the low registers, which act as sound cushions and soften dissonances in the upper voices. "In part" sounds strange here. What else did he do to avoid the tension that's commonly found in very dissonant music? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )
I may expand this section a little bit and will get back to you soon (whether I find further useful information in the sources or not). Toccata quarta (talk) 13:13, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 Waiting for requester... —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:43, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
I have just expanded the paragraph. Abrahams isn't clear on all the devices Sorabji used to temper dissonances in his music, but I have added one (in the last sentence of the paragraph). Toccata quarta (talk) 15:24, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
checkmark Done by requester. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:51, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
No, he did not improvise (at least as part of his creative process). This passage was discussed during the 2013 copy edit (see the first two paragraphs here) and changed with this edit. Toccata quarta (talk) 13:13, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
So if I understand this correctly, he knew what he was going to compose without needing to workshop it? He went straight to the final product? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:43, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Abrahams (who is used as a source) is discussing the claims various sources make about Sorabji's approach to composition. On p. 63, he writes, "The most significant point of departure between this account and that of Derus concerns the time-scale on which the compositional process took place. One of the key points implied by Derus is the spontaneity of the act ('without sketches, without planning, without looking ahead or back'). Sorabji, on the other hand, was equally concerned with emphasising the 'long process' of planning and consideration that went into the design of the piece, even though the musical elements themselves (presumably themes, fugue subjects, etc.) apparently represented only the final stage (of planning)." There are some other (nowadays discredited) accounts that paint Sorabji as "taking dictation from above" and that kind of thing. Toccata quarta (talk) 11:23, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 Done. I'll leave it as is. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:51, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
It refers to their length. I wanted to avoid repetition, as I have "large-scale" later in the sentence. Toccata quarta (talk) 13:13, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
Would "longest" be appropriate? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:43, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Yes, that's also good. Toccata quarta (talk) 11:18, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 Done. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:51, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Transcription was a creative endeavour for Sorabji, as it had been for many of the composer-pianists who inspired him. The clause after the comma sounds unnecessary, although I think it's supposed to lead the reader into the next sentence. We might be able to keep it if we join the two sentences with a colon. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:49, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
OK. Toccata quarta (talk) 13:13, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 Done. Reformatted sentences a little. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:43, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Originally, this passage (with a slightly different wording) was in the section "Writings", so it was something of a deviation from the topic of that section and it made sense to "mark it" as a side note. It remained in brackets during the 2013 copy edit, but I suppose they could be removed now. I like the feel they lend to the passage, but that is a minor point. Toccata quarta (talk) 13:13, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 Done. Removing parentheses. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:43, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Writings

  • Although in his youth Sorabji was attracted to what were then the newest developments in European art music, his musical tastes were essentially conservative. So Sorabji's musical tastes were always conservative, and he liked the newest developments in art music in his youth, but not when he grew older? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:49, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
In his younger years, he was very supportive of progressive music. In the 1930s, he began to express disinterest in it, and later outright distaste for it. However, what was "modernist" in 1910 was not necessarily so in 1930, and Sorabji had nothing but contempt for the avant-garde of the 1950s. Toccata quarta (talk) 13:13, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 Done. Mentioned the 1910s. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:51, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Sorabji's main bêtes noires were Stravinsky, the late Schoenberg [...] Is it important to note that Schoenberg had already died? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )
This is a way of referring to Schoenberg's later compositional techniques and works (same as with "late Beethoven", etc.). Schoenberg's early works belong roughly to the late-Romantic tradition, but he later developed his twelve-tone technique, a style of composition that Sorabji found deeply unsympathetic. Toccata quarta (talk) 13:13, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 Done. I've removed "late" and added when Sorabji started disliking his style in parentheses. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:51, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
  • and he denounced Schoenberg's vocal writing and use of Sprechgesang, while criticising even his later tonal works and transcriptions. Is there a reason why "denounced" and "criticis[ing]" are separate? It seems like it could all go together. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:49, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
I guess I used that distinction because of what the sources said. (Furthermore, many people would find it surprising that he criticised something as relatively uncontroversial as tonal music and transcriptions, which do not attract the kind of controversy that twelve-tone music does.) What I can say for sure is that he definitely reserved harsher words (or at least more of them) for Schoenberg's vocal writing and use of Sprechgesang than for his later tonal works and transcriptions. But it shouldn't make a big difference. Toccata quarta (talk) 13:13, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 Done. Minor adjustments. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:51, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
  • The bulk of Sorabji's music criticism is found in the books Around Music (1932; reissued 1979) and Mi contra fa: The Immoralisings of a Machiavellian Musician (1947; reissued 1986), which include revised versions of some of his essays. Do his essays appear in both books or just Mi contra fa? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:49, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
In both books (and Sorabji wrote many more essays; the two books contain just some of them). I thought "include" avoids the ambiguity, or is it unclear even so? Toccata quarta (talk) 13:13, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 Done. Played around with sentences to disambiguate a little more. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:51, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Legacy

  • Sorabji's music and personality have inspired both praise and condemnation, which has often been attributed to the length of some of his works. Slightly edited. Were praise and condemnation both attributed to his works' length or just condemnation? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:49, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
The condemnation. In particular, I had the following quote from Owen in mind (which is referenced in the section): "I am not suggesting that Sorabji's output is lacking in compositions of conventional length or writings that are moderate in their constructive criticism, for there are examples of both, but it is his extremities which seem to stick in the minds of Sorabji sceptics." (p. 16) Toccata quarta (talk) 13:13, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 Done. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:51, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
The point is that Sorabji was not a "pure conservative", at least in the early part of his life. Musical modernism challenged listeners' expectations to a tremendous degree and to this day it has not been fully embraced by the concert hall. Most fans of classical music know this, but many casual readers will not. Maybe something like the radical [NPOV?] innovations of musical modernism could make the passage clearer? Toccata quarta (talk) 13:13, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
question mark Suggestion How about: However, early in his life he was interested in musical modernism, which influenced his works that critics found bewildering [...]? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:51, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
Well, that appears to be inserting something of a split between modernist and non-modernist works (within the same period of his creative career). Since most of the ideas I'm getting on how to rewrite this passage involve too many commas, I'm thinking of using parentheses: However, critics found his early works (influenced by musical modernism) bewildering. Would this help? I'm thinking of dropping "bewildering" entirely, as it is making the sentence rather cumbersome. Maybe something like However, his early, modernist works were deemed nearly unintelligible by critics could work? Toccata quarta (talk) 17:26, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
Incidentally, here is a passage from Abrahams (pp. 30–31), which might be worth quoting from in the article, in order to make clearer the point(s) the section is trying to make: It must also be borne in mind that of the works that were published during Sorabji's lifetime by far the majority were written in an early style that is, because it had not fully developed, sometimes actually more difficult to read and comprehend than the more carefully structured material produced after the mid-1920s (Piano Sonata No. 2 is a good example). When this is considered in conjunction with the conservative musical outlook prevalent in England at the time, it is not particularly surprising that commentators had difficulty in getting to grips with his writing ... In contrast, by the time of the "renaissance" in the late-1970s Sorabji had long since been overtaken by the developments in twentieth century music. Like Richard Strauss, he had begun his compositional career at the forefront of compositional thought and ended it seeming decidedly old-fashioned. This is all the more interesting, bearing in mind that even now Sorabji's "old-fashioned" outlook sometimes remains somewhat cryptic, even to those who would champion his music. Toccata quarta (talk) 17:26, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
I have included part of the Abrahams excerpt (quoted above) in the article. I also rewrote the problematic sentence and removed "bewildering" from it, but I'm not sure if it will be to your liking. Toccata quarta (talk) 12:12, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
checkmark Done by requester. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 04:31, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Toccata quarta's questions

Rewritten passages

  • From context, is "raga" a subelement of Indian music? You put this hidden note in the article but did not return to it in the comments above, as far as I can see. There doesn't appear to be any ambiguity, judging by the raga article, which says, "A raga ... is a melodic framework for improvisation akin to a melodic mode in Indian classical music." Roberge (2020) says, "Sorabji discussed the lack of architectonic of Indian music, the straitjacket of the raga, its phrase structure without organic growth" (p. 199). Toccata quarta (talk) 17:11, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
  • While he was attracted to modernist aesthetics at first, he dismissed large portions I think this could be ambiguous and give readers the impression that the dismissal(s) occurred while he was still attracted to modernist aesthetics. Toccata quarta (talk) 13:13, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
I thought the "at first" would be enough, but I'll change it to Although he was attracted to modernist aesthetics at first, he later dismissed [...] How's it look? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 04:31, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 Done: That looks good. Toccata quarta (talk) 08:07, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
  • He embraced only a few aspects of Zoroastrianism before cutting his ties to various Parsi and Zoroastrian organisations This is misleading. Roberge (2020), after discussing Sorabji's breaks with various Parsi and Zoroastrian organizations, writes, "Sorabji nevertheless always kept an interest in his Persian heritage" (p. 69). Sorabji also wrote in 1959, "All my Zarathustrian instincts rise in revolt against the to me revolting concomitants of Christian burial, and I'm taking bloody fine care that that never shall happen to ME! A chariot of fire is to mark MY exit..." and he was indeed cremated. Toccata quarta (talk) 13:13, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
How about adding after that sentence, However, he was still interested in his Persian heritage, and insisted that his body should be cremated after his death? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 04:31, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
Yes, that would work (or just "his body be cremated", if that's correct). Toccata quarta (talk) 08:07, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
I've added it. I'll leave it to you if the source needs to be moved to after it. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:25, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 Done: Thanks, I moved the reference to the end of the paragraph. Toccata quarta (talk) 07:13, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
  • both present already in Sorabji's earliest works You removed the "already" in this passage. It does not make a big difference, but it could give readers the impression that these features of his style are not present in his later works (especially since it appears in a section mentioning his early interest in modernist music). I leave the decision up to you. Toccata quarta (talk) 07:46, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
How about removing "earliest", if they present themselves throughout his works? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 04:31, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
Well, there was some overlap between his career and those of Messiaen and Stockhausen, so that would be raising some question marks. However, I think "throughout" could be used (e.g. present throughout Sorabji's works). Would you agree? Toccata quarta (talk) 08:07, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
"Throughout" works for me. I've added it. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:25, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 Done Toccata quarta (talk) 07:13, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
  • idiosyncrasies and irregularities in his notation: a shortage of interpretative directions. With... This should be rewritten; the "idiosyncrasies and irregularities" include not only the shortage of interpretative directions, but also the lack of time signatures and the irregular use of bar lines. Toccata quarta (talk) 13:13, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
Tweaked it to include the two you mentioned. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 04:31, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
Ideally, the whole thing should be like a (bulleted) list in sentence form (without bullets, if possible). For example:
"The unusual features of Sorabji's musical language and the 'ban' resulted in idiosyncrasies and irregularities in his notation:
Basically, one sentence with the aforementioned underlying structure. Not sure how feasible that is. Toccata quarta (talk) 08:07, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
How about: The unusual features of Sorabji's musical language and the 'ban' resulted in idiosyncrasies and irregularities in his notation: a shortage of interpretative directions (except in his chamber and orchestral works), the absence of time signatures in his later pieces and the non-systematic use of bar lines? My use of "later" should probably be more specific; if there's a piece from which time signatures disappear that might be useful. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:25, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
The shortage of interpretative directions applies to all of his works, so the chamber and orchestral ones are not an exception. Looking at [7], I think the passage on time signatures should be rewritten, as they occasionally appeared in his later works. So I'm thinking of something like this: The unusual features of Sorabji's musical language and the "ban" resulted in idiosyncrasies and irregularities in his notation: a shortage of interpretative directions, the/a relative/virtual absence of time signatures (with the exception [or "excepting"] his chamber and orchestral works) and the non-systematic use of bar lines. Sorry about all the slashes! Toccata quarta (talk) 07:13, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
Looking at the source provided, it seems that time signatures seem to be used rather often (no idea if the absence of comments means they are or are not used)? I would lean towards "relative absence" if you're going to mention the lack of time signatures. I think the parenthetical thought will sound better if it starts with except in his [...] —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:05, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
OK, let's go for that. Toccata quarta (talk) 08:00, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 Done Toccata quarta (talk) 10:24, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
Switched to "writings". —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 04:31, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 Done Toccata quarta (talk) 08:07, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
  • For most of the Second World War You changed "much" to "most", but I believe the earlier version was more accurate. Sorabji initiated work on his Symphony No. 2 in 1942 and it is quite possible that he put the Studies aside for some time. Based on what is known about his rate of composition, it is highly unlikely that he spent some four years working on a 456-page score (that of the Studies). Toccata quarta (talk) 07:46, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Took a stab in the dark, as many times people mean "the majority" when "much" is used. Switched back. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 04:31, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 Done Toccata quarta (talk) 08:07, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
  • correspondences Why not the singular? It is pretty common in the literature I have seen on Sorabji's letters. Also note that a later part of the article uses the singular ("extensive correspondence"). Toccata quarta (talk) 13:13, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
He wrote back and forth to many people, not just one, right? Any descriptor that would accurately describe those with whom he corresponded with? Admirers? Peers? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 04:31, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
Here are some excerpts from Roberge (2020) with useful information: "His limited contacts with the world around him are documented mostly through letters that he exchanged with his small circle of friends. [...] the Sorabji Archive houses a collection of letters from some 175 individuals or corporate bodies as well as copies of many letters by Sorabji, and others are found in various public archives. The extant letters to him represent obviously only part of what he received, for he sometimes discarded many items en masse [...]" (p. xxv); and "Sorabji spent considerable energy writing letters to take care of business matters and keep in touch with friends. In 1932 [...] he decided that he would no longer be bothered with letter answering and writing during the week [...] and postponed this to the whole of his Sundays, from about ten in the morning until six or so at night. In the mid-1940s his correspondence averaged thirty to forty letters a week. [...] Sorabji regularly exchanged letters with friends whom he could not see regularly because they lived elsewhere [...]" (p. 375). Toccata quarta (talk) 08:07, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
So would you say that he kept a correspondence between his friends or (more generally) acquaintances? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:25, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
For the most part, yes. More formal letters are less common, and disputes were often the subject of his open letters. To elaborate on this further, what Roberge probably means is that the letters were numerous, not that the exchanges themselves necessarily elicited much back and forth between the correspondents. Roberge's site on Sorabji says, "Unlike the biography, the website does not use Sorabji's extensive correspondence." ([8]) His Opus sorabjianum says, "Another important activity throughout Sorabji's life was an extensive correspondence with his limited circle of friends" (p. xxv). Toccata quarta (talk) 18:03, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
I'll take a fragment of that quoted bit and incorporate it into the lead. As it's quoted, I've left a placeholder comment for the citation. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:05, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
OK; I'll put the source there in a moment. Toccata quarta (talk) 08:00, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 Done Toccata quarta (talk) 08:07, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
It seems like the assertion of Sorabji was a very late starter could be attributed in-text? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 04:31, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
Yes, but ideally without a quotation, as that would be dropping Hinton (the source) a bit too early into the text. Something like "he has been called..." is an option, but sooner or later, someone would ask for attribution in the text. Toccata quarta (talk) 08:07, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
I'll switch it to "He has been called [...]" in that case. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:25, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 DoneToccata quarta (talk) 07:13, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
Added "partially". How's it look? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 04:31, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 Done Toccata quarta (talk) 08:07, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
"Scant" is a cool word and I like it myself, but I'm not sure if the average reader would immediately know what it means
 Done: OK, understood. Toccata quarta (talk) 08:07, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
  • increasing dimensions and technical demands The previous version had "and their modernist idiom and increasing dimensions and technical demands", though I suppose this was unclear. The point is that the technical demands (and not just dimensions) of his works continually increased and critics who reviewed the scores were giving Sorabji advice and literally begging him to make his music more playable. Toccata quarta (talk) 13:13, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
Just making sure, it's important to note the progression of the length and technical complexity? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 04:31, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
Not really; the text remains correct either way. Toccata quarta (talk) 08:07, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
I made everything past "modernist style" its own sentence. Would it be correct to say that the technical demands were complex? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:25, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
In general, a reference to technical demands on its own is taken (by musicians) as meaning that a piece is difficult to play. If that wouldn't be obvious to non-musicians, I would suggest using "technical complexity", which should be clear to all. In fact, I'll probably update it straight away. Toccata quarta (talk) 07:13, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 Done Toccata quarta (talk) 07:17, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
I could go with "fan", but it seems inappropriate given their relationship to Sorabji and the lingo of the time. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 04:31, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 Done Toccata quarta (talk) 08:07, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
Removed "believed". —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 04:31, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 Done Toccata quarta (talk) 08:07, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for catching that. I've changed it to say "expenses to microfilm Sorabji's [...]" Is that better?
 Done: Yes, that's good. Toccata quarta (talk) 08:07, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
There's not much information to go on, so I can't really change much there. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 04:31, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
Understood. Powell's booklet for his recording of the piece has the following: "The two composers finally met in 1980 [should be 1979 – Toccata quarta] under faintly bizarre circumstances: Stevenson had come to Sorabji's house in Corfe Castle, Dorset, at the behest of the BBC which wanted to film the two men in conversation about Francis George Scott". Toccata quarta (talk) 08:07, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
If the important thing to take away here is that Sorabji met Stevenson for the first time, I don't see a problem with it. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:05, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 Done: OK. Toccata quarta (talk) 08:00, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
  • One of the prevalent rumours is It is no longer prevalent, at least among scholars, all of whom have accepted Owen's findings and dismissed Sorabji's "Spanish-Sicilian" ancestry as a myth. Toccata quarta (talk) 13:13, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
How does "debunked claim" sound? I see somewhere else that "myth" is used for a source, so I have no trouble with it being changed back to that. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 04:31, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 Done: That's a good idea. Toccata quarta (talk) 08:07, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
"Extraction" could work contextually; I just changed it because I didn't think most readers would read that without doubling-back to parse it. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 04:31, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 Done: Fair enough. Toccata quarta (talk) 08:07, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
  • on a personal level (while not necessarily his friends) This passage got deleted. The point is that these were testimonies of people who were not his friends, and could therefore not to be dismissed as being biased. At the same time, I worded the passage in such a way so as not to give the impression that he had no friends (though this is covered later in the article anyway). Toccata quarta (talk) 13:13, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
Would calling them "acquaintances" be appropriate? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 04:31, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
I guess so. The people whom Owen interviewed included people who helped him with household chores, neighbors, etc. Toccata quarta (talk) 08:07, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
I'll change it to "acquaintances", then.
 Done: OK. Toccata quarta (talk) 07:13, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
  • He continued to reference Ellis This sounds as though Sorabji had already referenced him before (details are in the section on his writings). The point is that he came to admire him and remained his admirer after their meeting, which is reflected in Ellis's influence on his writings on sexual issues. Toccata quarta (talk) 13:13, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
Changed "continued" to "went on". I think that should make sense.
 Done: It does. :-) Toccata quarta (talk) 08:07, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
  • rebuffed This sounds a bit harsh. Roberge (2020) writes, "The Scottish musician must have set things straight at some point, because Sorabji's letters become much less effusive after a one-year break in the correspondence in 1932–33 (Chisholm was now married)." (p. 152) Toccata quarta (talk) 13:13, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
I can think of "reject his advances", but I'm not sure how explicitly Sorabji made his affection apparent to Chisholm. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:25, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
Here is a quote from Roberge (2020), which gives you some flavor of their correspondence: "Though several other letters contain isolated effusive passages, rarely did Sorabji's intensity of feelings burst as forcefully as on 17 October 1930, when he referred to an intimate conversation they had in Chisholm's room at the Bankes Arms Hotel in Corfe Castle, during which Sorabji obviously made a thorough declaration of love. In the letter, said declaration was in French, surely in the hope that the linguistic distance would make it more acceptable. Sorabji added [in the letter to Chisholm – note by Toccata quarta] that he went to bed every night with what must have been a photograph of Chisholm, 'tucked in my pyjama jacket pocket'." (p. 172)
The only word I can think of as neutral as possible would be "reject". It comes off a little strong but one can "politely reject someone's advances". —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:05, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 Done: Having re-read the quotations myself, I think "rebuffed" is about right. Toccata quarta (talk) 08:00, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
It does. Maybe add "around" before "when"? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:25, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
OK. I was also thinking of "around the time when" or "around the time of his marriage in 1932". I'll leave the choice up to you. Toccata quarta (talk) 07:13, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
Changed it to possibly sometime around his marriage. How's it look?
 Done: That's good. Toccata quarta (talk) 08:00, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
Switched it to read as "rarely appeared". —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:25, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 Done Toccata quarta (talk) 07:13, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for catching that. Rearranged the sentence. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:25, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 Done Toccata quarta (talk) 07:13, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
  • In contrast to his previous pieces, the union of This changes the meaning completely. Yes, the union is new, but that's not what the source says; it focuses on the novelty of his reliance on baroque forms. Toccata quarta (talk) 13:13, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
Switched back with some slight tweaks. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:25, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 Done Toccata quarta (talk) 07:13, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
If I had to guess, it seems that his position as a vice president was important enough to be noted in the bulletin for members to read, even in name. However, they seemed to keep the "honorary" in there as he wasn't formally a vice president with the position's responsibilities, but the fact that he was "honorary" is second to his title of "vice president". —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )
That sounds like a reasonable guess. I'll probably send Roberge or the Alkan Society an email to clarify this. If you'll forgive me, I have reverted the spelling back to "honorary", as most sources give this spelling as the norm for Canadian English but as archaic in AmE and BrE. Toccata quarta (talk) 07:13, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
After checking older bulletins of the Alkan Society (from the 1970s and 1980s), I can say it is safe to refer to his honorary and indeed symbolic position as just "honorary", without needing to have recourse to brackets. Toccata quarta (talk) 19:18, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
  • rumours You used this a few times in place of "myths", but "myths" is really the term to be used. Here are a few quotes to support this:
"The son could also have managed to have his mother interred in a Catholic cemetery to reinforce the Spanish-Sicilian myth." (Roberge [2020], p. 42)
"There were many myths and legends about [Sorabji]" (Alistair Hinton, quoted in Owen, p. 273)
"enquirers of Sorabji's life have been fed more myth than reality" (Owen, p. 2)
Abrahams's dissertation has the word in its title: Le mauvais jardinier: A Reassessment of the Myths and Music of Kaikhosru Shapurji Sorabji. Toccata quarta (talk) 13:13, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
Changing those back. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:25, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 Done: Thanks. Toccata quarta (talk) 07:13, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
  • he began to hate writing music I do not like the use of "hate" here. Besides sounding a bit "plain", I find it a bit charged due to the word's connotations ("hate speech", "hate crime", etc.). Sorabji's letters from those years capture strong disgust on his part (e.g. "Both things [composition and practicing] bore me to extinction." and "Damn composition. Blast composition. Fuck composition. Bugger composition... am sick of it."). Toccata quarta (talk) 13:13, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
I don't immediately associate "hate" with phrases like "hate speech" and such as its literal meaning is still used prevalently. However, from the quoted material you've posted it seems that he went beyond "hating" writing. Would "abhor" or "loathe" fit better? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:25, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
Yes, either word would make a good fit. Toccata quarta (talk) 07:13, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
Changed to "loathe". —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:05, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 Done Toccata quarta (talk) 08:00, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
  • announced he would not write Sorabji was very private, so I find "announced" potentially misleading. He simply mentioned his intention to stop composing in a few letters written to his friends and acquaintances. Toccata quarta (talk) 13:13, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
Changed it to "mentioned in his letters". I left out whom he wrote to, but feel free to add something like "acquaintances". —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:25, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 Done Toccata quarta (talk) 07:13, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Kaikhosru Sorabji was always close to his mother You rewrote this section to distinguish between Sorabji and his father by using their first names. Sorabjian literature often uses the "Sorabji and Shapurji Sorabji" distinction. An option would be to refer to Sorabji's father as "Shapurjee Sorabjee", an alternative spelling of his name mentioned in note 1 (see the "Notes" section). What do you think? Toccata quarta (talk) 13:13, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
In that case, how about inverting the note? "Sorabjee" is used in the body of the article, and "Shapurji Sorabji" is mentioned as the other name in the note. I think it could be a little disorienting, but I think it will work. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )
I looked around yesterday and came across MOS:SAMESURNAME, so the section will have to be redone either way. One source of concern with "Sorabji and Sorabjee" is that the difference might be minimal/imperceivable in a spoken version of the article. Also, while "Shapurjee Sorabjee" is used in some sources, it is pretty much nonexistent in Sorabjian literature. Toccata quarta (talk) 07:13, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
I will leave that to you; the Kaikhosru/Shapurji distinction is the best way I can think of to avoid ambiguity for a spoken version and keeping with the common names used in literature. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:05, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
OK. I may start a discussion on the MOS talk page or elsewhere to get some further input. Toccata quarta (talk) 08:00, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Melodic material is treated loosely in these works and reflect their harmonic freedom This does not sound correct. I also had my doubts about the previous version of the sentence (from the 2013 copy edit). Before the very first GOCE copy edit, the sentence read, "Melodic material is treated loosely in these works, due to their harmonic freedom, with ornamentation and textural patterns assuming a preeminent position." Toccata quarta (talk) 13:13, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
Working off of the pre-copy edited sentence, I can think of Melodic material is treated loosely in these works due to their harmonic freedom; ornamentation and textural patterns assume a preeminent position. This is assuming that "ornamentation and textural patterns" are loosely associated with "harmonic freedom". —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:25, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
That flows nicely; thanks. Toccata quarta (talk) 07:13, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
I've incorporated it into the article while taking the contrast with themes into account. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:05, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 Done Toccata quarta (talk) 08:00, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
  • This type of alteration is also seen when numbering variations. This sounds as though the alteration is being done by the reader or the listener, when in fact it was done only by Sorabji. Toccata quarta (talk) 13:13, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
How about This type of alteration is also seen in Sorabji's numbering of variations? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:05, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
Thanks; I'll implement this right away. Toccata quarta (talk) 08:00, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 Done Toccata quarta (talk) 08:07, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
I think it's fine given the context (unless there is a performer that is named something like Piano Sonata No. 5), but I can alternatively propose: While Sorabji wrote pieces of standard or even minute dimensions, his largest works—Piano Sonata No. 5 (Opus archimagicum), Sequentia cyclica and the Symphonic Variations for Piano, which last about six, eight and nine hours respectively— are of exceptional length and difficulty, and thus inaccessible to most performers. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:05, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
That would imply those are his largest works, but (unbelievably) they are "only" some of his longest ones (e.g. Organ Symphony No. 2 is almost certainly longer than Sonata No. 5, but the latter work is unperformed, so it's an estimate anyway). Let's leave the current wording in place, then. Toccata quarta (talk) 08:00, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
  • which consists of 11 staves and uses the sostenuto pedal frequently The use of the sostenuto pedal is a feature of his piano music, not his organ works. I put "frequent calls for use of the sostenuto pedal", for even when they are not indicated in the score, it is often impractical to play the music without using it. Toccata quarta (talk) 13:13, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
If it helps, here is how the pre-copy edited version of the sentence should have been interpreted: This necessitated the regular use of systems of three and more staves in Sorabji's keyboard parts (which reached its peak on page 124 of the manuscript of his Third Organ Symphony, which uses 11 staves), as well as frequent calls for use of the sostenuto pedal. The main difference are the added brackets, though they may make a big difference here. Toccata quarta (talk) 18:03, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
Ah, I see what you're getting at. I've edited it to read as such: This necessitated the frequent use of regular use of the sostenuto pedal and systems of three or more staves in Sorabji's keyboard parts; the largest system he has ever written is on page 124 of his Third Organ Symphony, which consists of 11 staves. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:05, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 Done: Thanks. I reworded the passage slightly, to be consistent with the terminology normally used for discussing multi-stave systems. Toccata quarta (talk) 08:00, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Sorabji received his first and only commission from Gentieu This could be read as saying that Sorabji received only one commission from Gentieu, without confirming whether he received commissions from others or not. Toccata quarta (talk) 17:53, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
How important is it to note that Gentieu only paid him commission once? I propose the following if we're trying to preserve everything: As he worked on it, Sorabji received Gentieu's only commission to him; the latter acted on behalf of the Philadelphia branch of the Delius Society. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:05, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
I meant it was Sorabji's only commission, whether from Gentieu or anyone else. Toccata quarta (talk) 08:00, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
Can we get rid of "first and"? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 04:50, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
I suppose we can. In fact, I think Sorabjian literature puts too much emphasis on this being Sorabji's only commission, but I would just go for "show and tell" and let the reader assume that the absence of mentions of other commissions means there were no other commissions. I will change this right now. Toccata quarta (talk) 09:15, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 Done Toccata quarta (talk) 10:24, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
  • he also wrote orchestral, chamber and organ pieces Just to be sure, does this imply that he wrote for no other instrumental settings? Sorabji did compose a few songs and multiple works for piano and orchestra, though most of his compositions fall into the categories already listed in the quoted sentence. Toccata quarta (talk) 13:07, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
I'm not sure if I understand what you're asking. Are there any other instruments/settings not already mentioned in the article, or is "piano and orchestra" an important distinction that needs to be made? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:05, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
I want to know if the wording of the listing implies that the list is comprehensive (i.e. a musician reading it will think, "OK, he did not compose piano concertos."). Toccata quarta (talk) 08:00, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
I'm not sure if concertos are classified under "pieces". Since it's in the lead, I don't think it needs to be exhaustive, and any reader who is interested will read further into the "Music" section. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 04:50, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
Let's keep it that way, given that there's no ambiguity. Yes, concertos (whether piano concertos, violin concertos, cello concertos, etc.) are pieces/compositions/works; these last three terms are used interchangeably in musical literature. Toccata quarta (talk) 09:15, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Section "Admirers and inner withdrawal" has the following passage (emphasis added): he took a break from composition. He eventually returned to composing, but worked at a slower pace than before and produced mostly short works. He stopped composing in 1968... I'm concerned this may be a bit repetitive and I would suggest using "returned to it" in the second sentence, if that option is grammatically correct. If not, let me know what else could be done about this. Toccata quarta (talk) 12:14, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
"It" is a valid choice and I've added it in. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:05, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 Done: Thanks. Toccata quarta (talk) 08:00, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
  • In some words where hyphens are optional, you removed them (e.g. in "stand-alone"), but you left them in "two-fold" and "extra-sensory". I prefer to hyphenate words unless doing so is very archaic (e.g. "to-day"), but of course, the text should use whatever is consistent with BrE. Toccata quarta (talk) 15:12, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
Had to double-check some style guides on when stand-alone/standalone is prevalent. I'm not sure if we're at the point where "standalone" is commonly used in formal writing, but I'll switch it back to "stand-alone" as that what guides seem to suggest. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:05, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 Done Toccata quarta (talk) 08:00, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
  • the Polish government awarded him a medal for championing Szymanowski's work in 1982 Could this be read as saying that the medal was just for championing Szymanowski in one year (i.e. 1982)? Toccata quarta (talk) 15:12, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
I've moved the year closer to the beginning of the clause. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:05, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 Done: Thanks. I added a comma after "1982" for consistency. Toccata quarta (talk) 08:00, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
Remind me who started using the term: historians like Roberge, Sorabji's acquaintances, or Sorabji himself? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:05, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
Roberge puts the "blame" on a 1960 article by Sorabji's friend Clinton Gray-Fisk (it uses the following wording: "the composer has categorically forbidden all public performance of his works"). Afterwards, Gray-Fisk's text served as a source to journalists and lexicographers (i.e. writers of music encyclopedias). Historians like Roberge have, for the past few decades, sought to set the record straight. However, lest we lose sight of the topic at hand, the point of the quotation marks is that the word ("ban") is a misnomer. Toccata quarta (talk) 08:00, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
I would suggest changing the parenthetical to (commonly referred to as a "ban" by journalists and music lexicographers). —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 04:50, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
Well, I find that a little wordy a little too soon. How about "also" or "popularly" (OK, the latter sounds cheap), without the ensuing "by journalists..." part? (The public also "embraced" the term, anyway.) I know it may confuse a reader, but a lead should pique a reader's interest and give them reason to continue reading. Toccata quarta (talk) 09:15, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
Replaced "commonly" with "also"; should resolve that. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:01, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 Done Toccata quarta (talk) 08:35, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

The lead

As mentioned above, I think "most prolific composers" would be fine in the lead. However, I have some concerns regarding the lead:

Shortened Gulistān. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 04:50, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
  • However, I'm concerned this might duplicate (or overlap considerably with) ranged from aphoristic fragments to works lasting several hours and his main expressive medium was the piano. Toccata quarta (talk) 13:13, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
  • I believe some English style guides discourage the kind of "sound clash" you get in "prolifi[c] [c]omposers"; maybe I'm wrong on that. Something like As one of the most prolific of/among 20th-century composers could be an improvement (even if the "sound clash" is not an issue). Toccata quarta (talk) 14:31, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
I don't think that's a big issue (if at all); otherwise people would have found different ways to describe, for example, black cats. I rewrote it as such: He is one of the most prolific 20th-century composers, and is best known for writing nocturnes and large-scale works for the piano [...] —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 04:50, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
  • His absorption of ... You rewrote this and created a large sentence, which I think could overwhelm readers. Perhaps it's best like this, but I would much rather break it down into two (or more, if that aids legibility). Toccata quarta (talk) 13:13, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
It's going to be difficult to split it into two sentences as half of it is explaining why his musical language is so "highly individual". I think the reader can take a momentary visual break if a semicolon is added to introduce a new clause as such (emphasis added): [...] resulted in a highly individual language; it is characterised by [...] —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 04:50, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
OK. Actually I think I've gotten used to the sentence and am fine with it in its present form. Toccata quarta (talk) 09:15, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
  • One more issue with the lead: large-scale works for the piano, which include [...] six piano sonatas. If we look at their durations (as given in Opus sorabjianum), not all of them fall into this category: No. 0, 24:38; No. 1, 22:06; No. 2, 52:13; No. 3, 87:00; No. 4, 139:26; No. 5, 391:12. Many (though not all) people would characterize No. 2 as "large-scale", but there's no argument about the last two. In place of "six", something like "several/multiple/various" could be used. Another option would be to put something concrete like which include [...] his Piano Sonatas Nos. 4 and 5 (not sure about linking here) or his last two piano sonatas, as these belong to his compositional maturity, unlike the previous ones (as the article makes clear). Or we could remove Opus clavicembalisticum from the list, to make it somewhat lighter and leave some room for details about the piano sonatas. Toccata quarta (talk) 13:16, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
After further consideration, I'm leaning towards ending the sentence with ... (Opus clavicembalisticum,) [could go] Gulistān and his last two piano sonatas. Let me know if this could be improved upon. Toccata quarta (talk) 13:47, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
Looks fine to me; not sure why "six piano sonatas" are being changed to "last two piano sonatas", but doesn't seem to affect it too much.
Well, the list of pieces is being introduced with "nocturnes and large-scale works for the piano", so all the pieces in the list should fit into that category. A 20-minute piano sonata wouldn't qualify as large-scale; already Beethoven and other pre-20th century composers regularly produced longer ones. Toccata quarta (talk) 08:35, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Other issues

When I was copy editing this I was thinking of the "the work" as a general, nonspecific term and "a closing movement" to be a subelement of said "work". An alternative would be to replace "the work" with "pieces". —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 04:50, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
OK; this can stay, then. Toccata quarta (talk) 09:15, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
I'm assuming that the concern here is that readers may assume that another Sorabji (who is not the main subject of this article) is doing the writing? I don't think this confusion should happen: although I have yet to see it, I believe by convention Wikipedia mentions other people who share the same surname by their full name. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 04:50, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
OK, let's keep this as it is. Toccata quarta (talk) 09:15, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
  • employed and refined in Sorabji's piano and organ symphonies Should we use "subsequent" or "later" (and "most")? Piano Symphony No. 3 is the one exception, as is, of course, Organ Symphony No. 1 (written before his "symphonic style" had developed). Note that an earlier paragraph has provided the basis for most of his piano and organ symphonies. Toccata quarta (talk) 14:35, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Double-checking, which one came later: Organ Symphony No. 1 or Piano Symphony No. 3? I think it's possible to add "after [piece]" at the end of sentence to clarify. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 04:50, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
Organ Symphony No. 1 is from 1924 and Piano Symphony No. 3 was written 1959–60. I wouldn't use "after [piece]", as the status of OS 1 is discussed earlier in the section. I also don't want to say something that isn't fully supported by the sources; I will re-read them and perhaps put a note in the text. Toccata quarta (talk) 09:15, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 Done: I have checked the sources and modified the passage accordingly. Toccata quarta (talk) 10:24, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
"[I]n general" is a parenthetical thought that isn't in parentheses; if it's removed it would not severely detract from the sentence. If you want to keep the sense of "in general", I can replace it with "generally" without any commas. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 04:50, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation. "General" is OK, so I'll keep it. Toccata quarta (talk) 09:15, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
  • their thematic character varies Is "character" the best word here? Would it make sense to say the "plot character" of an author's novels varies because some of them have more characters (people) than others? Toccata quarta (talk) 13:13, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
Might as well pluralise this while it's being worked on. If you don't mind a little bit of alliteration, how about "thematic traits"? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 04:50, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
Well, "traits" could be taken as a reference to the character of the themes. I was considering "thematic nature", even if that is almost the same as "character". Two other words that appeal to me are "variety" (though there is "varies" soon after) and "richness". Toccata quarta (talk) 09:15, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
Incidentally, Abrahams (p. 219) has, There is some decrease in thematic intensity subsequently (the exposition of Piano Symphony No. 3 introduces fifty-four, while the Fourth Symphony has no more than twenty-seven), so perhaps he felt that such thematic saturation was ultimately divisive (emphasis mine) in his discussion of the symphonic first movements and their use of multiple themes. However, "saturation" will be understood (at least by musicians) to imply considerable thematic density (another option). Toccata quarta (talk) 14:25, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
"Nature" sounds better, as "variety" focuses on its plurality, and "intensity", "density", and "saturation" touch upon the quality instead of the "base substance", so to speak. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:01, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 Done Toccata quarta (talk) 08:35, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
So when the bigamous marriage got annulled, was Shapurji's will legally rendered null as well? From what I understand, the will lost its legality, but the estate had already been divided accordingly and couldn't be redistributed? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 04:50, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
Roberge (2020) writes, On 30 November 1932, that is, four months after Shapurji Sorabji's death, a petition was filed to the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Testamentary and Intestate Jurisdiction, for probate of his will (dated 8 August 1930). [...] He bequeathed the whole net income of his residuary estate to his [second] wife [...] In about 1936 Madeline instituted in the judicial district of Lisbon an action for annulment of the marriage that her husband, Shapurji Sorabji, had contracted with Nobubai Visvonata Catcar (as the name appears in the court documents) on 17 June 1929 in Ponda, Portuguese India. [...] The court documents tell us that Shapurji Sorabji had contracted a bigamous marriage with this woman, also known as Bablibai Shapurji Sorabji, and had been living with her since 1905. The tribunal decided that the court of the district of the Islands of Goa had competence for this action. In a judgment appearing at folio 371, the Goa court "declared the said marriage of the defendant [Nobubai Visvonata Catcar] to be void but with the effects in her favour" (p. 38). Owen (p. 43) has, Fourteen years later and after writing reams of judicial polemic, the bigamous marriage was finally annulled on 26 July 1949, but the financial assets of the "late and wholly unlamented" Shapurji Sorabji could not be retrieved. The content of the will was clear, but the distribution of wealth due to the status of the bigamous marriage came into question. Toccata quarta (talk) 09:15, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
How about switching the last part of the sentence to but the financial assets could not be retrieved? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:01, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 Done Toccata quarta (talk) 08:35, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
  • The use of baroque, theme-oriented forms is often contrasted with the more rhapsodic This sounds like someone is pointing out a contrast, but I want the passage to say that these forms contrast with one another. Is there a clearer way to put this? Toccata quarta (talk) 13:13, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
"Contrasts" should work as a replacement. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:01, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 Done Toccata quarta (talk) 08:35, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
  • The text does not mention what Emily Edroff-Smith's profession was. (Her article gives "English organist, organ teacher and piano teacher".) Should this description (or at least some of it) be included in the article? It certainly would be consistent with the rest of text, but I find it a bit long. Toccata quarta (talk) 13:13, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Many of his pieces have titles in Latin, Italian and other foreign languages and account for around 60% of his known works. Obviously, I meant that around 60% of Sorabji's compositions have titles in languages other than English, but the sentence was cumbersome, and I think at present it could be read as "Many of his pieces ... account for around 60% of his known works." How about Around 60% of his known works have titles in Latin, Italian and other foreign languages? Toccata quarta (talk) 12:30, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
I've changed it to Around 60% of his known works have non-English titles, unless it's important to note that there were particularly Latin and Italian titles? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:01, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
OK. I have taken the liberty to mention some of the languages in the text, as it serves as an illustration of how far Sorabji's construction of a fictitious southern and Catholic ancestry went. Toccata quarta (talk) 08:35, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
Good catch; switched the wording around. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )
 Done Toccata quarta (talk) 08:35, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
  • "self-organising" (baroque) and athematic forms whose ebb and flow is not dictated by themes I want this passage to say that the ebb and flow of neither the "self-organising" nor the athematic forms is dictated by themes. Does it say just that or does it tell the reader that that is the case only for the athematic ones? Toccata quarta (talk) 16:27, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Would "variability" work as a replacement for "ebb and flow"? I would suggest Abrahams describes Sorabji's approach as built on "self-organising" (baroque) and athematic forms that can be expanded as needed, as their variability is not dictated by themes. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:01, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
"Variability" changes the meaning considerably. My concern was potential ambiguity, but there appears to be none and I think I figured out the answer to my concern in the meantime: the meaning would be changed if we were to use "self-organising" (baroque) forms and athematic forms (added word highlighted). Toccata quarta (talk) 08:35, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
  • although Michael Habermann may have The text should mention that Habermann is a pianist, but the sentence introducing his name already uses that word to describe Solomon. But maybe a repetition is inevitable here, unless the sentence is split into two. Toccata quarta (talk) 15:13, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
We could introduce Habermann as a parenthetical thought: [...] although another pianist, Michael Habermann, may have [...] —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:01, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
That's an excellent idea; done! Toccata quarta (talk) 08:35, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
  • It also reflects his fondness for tritone and semitone relationships. For example, the opening gesture of his Fourth Piano Sonata... Would a colon or semicolon instead of a period make this passage flow better? Toccata quarta (talk) 15:13, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
Switched it to a semicolon. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:01, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 Done Toccata quarta (talk) 08:35, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
Thanks; switched it to past tense.
 Done Toccata quarta (talk) 08:35, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
Dropped both of those words. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:01, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 Done Toccata quarta (talk) 08:35, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
I didn't touch that, as I assumed the cited source mentioned it. They seem to be two different impairments; being chairbound (permanently or otherwise) doesn't necessarily prevent people from travelling outside their home. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:01, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
It does appear in the source: Rapoport (p. 50) says, "he moved into a [...] nursing home, where, permanently chairbound, he received full-time nursing care." I suppose it can convey to the reader the information that he did not leave the nursing home (though I would have to check the sources to know if there were any visits to hospitals in that time frame). As mentioned earlier in the paragraph and later in the article, he could no longer write music due to his failing health and was crippled with arthritis in his last years. Plus, he was reclusive enough during his earlier years and even more in his later ones. Toccata quarta (talk) 08:35, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
Ah, now I remember why I was fine with it: later on in the article it says [...] which hampered his ability to walk and sometimes left him housebound. Emphasis mine, slightly edited. In 1976, he wasn't permanently housebound, while he was in 1987. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:38, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
Yep. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:01, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the confirmation. Toccata quarta (talk) 08:35, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
  • In 1951, Holliday organised the presentation The process was completed in 1953, so I would use "began organising", to be consistent with the sources, unless the earlier wording was problematic. Toccata quarta (talk) 08:13, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
How about From 1951 to 1953, Holliday organised the presentation [...]? That would probably remove the "in 1953" afterwards. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:01, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 Done: Tweaked the ensuing passage a little bit. Toccata quarta (talk) 08:35, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
I used in these polythematic movements afterwards to describe (at the very least) the Fourth Piano Sonata and Second Piano Symphony's opening movements; I think we're safe from readers assuming this applies to non-polythematic movements, as the sole theme would technically be the dominant one (would be redundant). I'm not sure if this polythematism extended to other movements. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:05, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
OK. Yes, other movements can be polythematic (see for example the note on Sorabji's fugal themes/subjects). I suspect some rewording may be needed. Toccata quarta (talk) 08:00, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
Ah, so if I understand correctly, there are other polythematic movements that do not have a dominant theme? In that case, I propose rewording the last sentence as In some polythematic movements, there are "dominant themes" or "mottos" that are given primary significance and permeate the rest of the compositions, if attention does not need to be drawn to the aforementioned movements. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 04:50, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
The fugues do not have a dominant theme, but most importantly, they may have up to six themes, while the symphonic first movements can have up to sixty-nine. My wording was clumsy; the point is that, despite having so many themes, one of them remains central and appears later in the piece (not just in the opening movement). The paragraph deals with the symphonic first movements. Sorry about the confusion! Toccata quarta (talk) 09:15, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
Ah, so it's more of a trivia bit about the symphonic movements. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:38, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
Pretty much. I think readers will assume from the context that that's the subject of the remark, so I will leave it like this. Toccata quarta (talk) 07:20, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
How about making it a parenthetical thought like so: [...] and produced a highly defective index (that Sorabji was displeased with) for Sorabji's [...] As much as I would like to have more distance between the two uses of "Sorabji", I think this is the best I can think of. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )
Would something "for his friend's book" or "that/which the composer was displeased with" be a possible workaround? Toccata quarta (talk) 09:15, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
I'm hesistant to use "friend" as it could potentially refer to an unrelated third party. "Composer" would be a better fit. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:38, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
 Done Toccata quarta (talk) 07:20, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
  • The second sentence of the lead used to start One of the 20th century's most prolific piano composers, he is best known for [...]. Is this kind of construction problematic? Just today, the following edit popped up on my watchlist and reminded me of this. I quite like the flow it gives to the text, but I don't know what other considerations have to be made here. Toccata quarta (talk) 08:35, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
I generally shy away from that style here. I find it tends to be used to pique the reader's interest in biographies which encyclopedias do not need. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:38, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
OK; understood. Toccata quarta (talk) 07:20, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Would it be OK to change "for writing nocturnes" to "for his nocturnes"? "Writer" appears in the previous sentence and Sorabji is better known for his music than for the act of composing (even if that's a trivial distinction). Let me know if this wording is problematic or less elegant. Toccata quarta (talk) 08:35, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
That works; I've changed it myself. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:38, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
Thanks! Toccata quarta (talk) 07:20, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Copies of the microfilms became available in several libraries and universities in the United States and South Africa. Just wanted to check if this should be reworded. Roberge (2020) gives the following: "Copies of the entire set of microfilms, amounting to thirteen reels, were acquired by (or placed in) four institutions: Northwestern University (Evanston, Illinois), the Free Library of Philadelphia, Mills College (Oakland, California), and the University of Cape Town." (p. 304) As there was only one South African institution involved, could this be misleading? Toccata quarta (talk) 08:13, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
It it potentially misleading, but I don't think it's necessary to clarify that there is only one South African institution at the expense of making it more wordy. The names of the institutions aren't given in the article, so I presume that an interested reader will consult the source for them. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:38, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
OK; that's reasonable. Toccata quarta (talk) 07:20, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
  • allotting of a fixed number Is "fixed" necessary? As mentioned in the paragraph, there are discrepancies in numbering and the numbers can be rather "symbolic". On the other hand, the number was used even if another one would have been correct, so in that sense, "fixed" can be justified. What do you think? Toccata quarta (talk) 08:13, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
Since it appears to be completely up to Sorabji's whims with his interest in numerology, how about switching it out for "arbitrary"? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:38, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
I think I will invoke "show don't tell" one more time and remove the qualifier, as the rest of the paragraph explains the various caveats. "Arbitrary" is not ideal, as tweaking isn't the norm and the numbers are often squares, cubes, etc. Toccata quarta (talk) 07:25, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
  • I saw this edit a few days ago and it got me thinking: should the highlighted words in The Society's concerts and in which led to his removal from the Trust be in lowercase? Roberge usually capitalizes "society" (when referring to Chisholm's organization) but not "trust", though I think they should follow the same logic (whatever the right approach is). Toccata quarta (talk) 18:08, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
Since the sentences in question follow right after their introduction, I think it's fine; it's not wrong for them to be in lowercase if you want to use them more generally as a society or trust. Although other societies appear in the article, only Chisholm's uses "The Society [...]" and it's the first one, so hopefully there's no confusion there. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:38, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
OK. Toccata quarta (talk) 07:20, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
  • drew on a variety of composers to develop his own style "To develop" makes the whole thing sound intentional, but it was spontaneous and Sorabji did not set out to develop his style by that means. Would something like drew on a variety of composers in developing his own style be OK? Toccata quarta (talk) 18:08, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
"Developing" would mean the same thing as it would mean he had consciously used them to create his style. Perhaps "influenced" would work, as in: [...] drew on a variety of composers that influenced his own style and approach to composition? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:38, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
I borrowed this phrase but used "shaped" in place of "influenced", since there is "influences" right in the next sentence. I believe some style guides encourage "who" in place of "that"; feel free to change this if it's for the best. Toccata quarta (talk) 07:20, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
  • The bulk of Sorabji's music criticism is found in the books Obviously, Sorabji wrote only two books, but this may not be clear from the text. Does something like is found in his two books(,) Around Music... work? Of course, at present it clashes with the semicolon that comes shortly after. Toccata quarta (talk) 08:15, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
An alternative I have in mind is: The bulk of Sorabji's music criticism is found in two books: Around Music (1932; reissued 1979) and Mi contra fa: The Immoralisings of a Machiavellian Musician (1947; reissued 1986). Both include [...] —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:38, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
That doesn't solve the issue (in my view), but I guess we can espouse the same approach as for other portions of the article and let the reader assume that the absence of other books in the text and of a "bibliography" section means he wrote only two books. Toccata quarta (talk) 07:20, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Sorabji wrote Il tessuto d'arabeschi (1979) for flute and string quartet. To my taste, this sentence feels very isolated, almost as if it were there by mistake. The previous version read Sorabji fulfilled it with Il tessuto d'arabeschi (1979) for flute and string quartet. Unless there is a better way to establish continuity in this passage, I would much prefer to restore the previous version. Toccata quarta (talk) 08:35, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
To clarify, he was paid commission for writing Il tessuto d'arabeschi? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:38, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
It's not really any different from what is described in the second paragraph of the lead in the article Commission (art). Roberge (2020) writes, Sorabji always wrote primarily to satisfy his own inner creative need, not to answer requests by others. [...] his first and only commission [...] Gentieu had financed the commission, for which Sorabji received a sum of £1,000 [...] (p. 391) Toccata quarta (talk) 07:20, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and edited it, but how does joining the two sentences look? I brought back the use of "fulfilled": [...] of the Delius Society, and fulfilled it by writing [...] —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 04:02, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
That's good; thanks. Toccata quarta (talk) 04:44, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
  • I notice you made no changes to the notes in the article (which are located just before the references) nor to the image captions (with one early exception). Were there no issues with those? Toccata quarta (talk) 08:40, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
I was primarily focused on the body. The image captions appear fine to me; the explanations for figures in his life like Ellis are good. Made a few tweaks with a few notes. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:38, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
Understood. I have alt texts left to do, but those probably do not require thorough copy editing or fancy English. I liked the simplification of the note on the Paul Sacher Stiftung acquisitions. Toccata quarta (talk) 07:20, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Two more lead issues:
I trimmed some of the third paragraph to avoid duplication and make it "lighter", but I was still bothered by the "long sentence". I eventually arrived at the following option and feel reasonably content with it: He drew on diverse influences like Ferruccio Busoni, Claude Debussy and Karol Szymanowski and developed a highly individual style characterised by frequent polyrhythms, interplay of tonal and atonal elements and lavish ornamentation. His (larger) works also often [or "tend to"] combine contrasting forms (primarily baroque and athematic). How does that strike you? The use of contrasting forms is more common in the larger works, so such a split would not be artificial. Toccata quarta (talk) 12:15, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
Looks good. I'm not sure if "also" is necessarily needed, though that depends on if you want to separate the idea of combining contrasting forms from everything that preceded it (I'd say remove it if you want there to be more distance). —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 04:02, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
Changed. I kept the "also" as the larger works also contain polyrhythms, etc., so it's still part of the discussion of his style. Toccata quarta (talk) 04:44, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
For some reason, the "extensive correspondence with his limited circle of friends" quotation is bugging me. How does a more plain from the (numerous) letters he exchanged with his (close) friends work out? "Epistolary contacts" crossed my mind also, but it feels very formal. Toccata quarta (talk) 12:15, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
I would definitely not use "epistolary contacts" here. I like your proposed alteration; I probably wouldn't add the words in parentheses for the lead. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 04:02, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
OK; I've done just that. Toccata quarta (talk) 04:44, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kaikhosru_Shapurji_Sorabji/Archive_2&oldid=1063810188"