Talk:Martin Shaw (composer)

Untitled

I would like to list Martin Shaw's activities, taken from a centenary appreciation by Eric Routley. It would be better than the stub, but not a full article - would that be okay? ix (talk) 17:08, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Technical problems

1. The external link to Smith Creek Music asks for a password, so the link should probably be revised.
2. Links to this page cannot be made using "{{Wikilink}}" due to multiple entries with the same name. What is the best way to link directly to this Martin Shaw?

--Marchesa (talk) 15:36, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

add infobox, change status

I would like to add an Infobox. I have added the details in "edit", but these are not yet showing on the actual page. I also feel this article has become more than a stub. I am the composer's grandson. Some information is from my own personal knowledge. Insideintelligence (talk) 11:18, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

To User:Insideinteligence: please read this guideline from WikiProject Composers on the use of infoboxes, and also this general WP guideline concerning original research. Best regards. Francesco Malipiero (talk) 16:41, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I would suggest that information coming from my personal knowledge is not the product of original research because I have not done any research in order to become aware of this information! Rather, it would be true to say that I am the source of this information. Insideintelligence (talk) 09:22, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello, I think the concern is that biographies are technically only supposed to include information that can be verified by available sources rather than personal knowledge - is most of the information you have included also in his autobiography or Grove entries? Rob (talk) 11:01, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Not just bios, but all articles. See wp:RS and wp:V.LeadSongDog come howl! 16:19, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, thank you, I'm well aware of those policies, I'm just trying to be polite to a well-meaning user rather than shove a load of rules in their face. What we're specifically requesting, Insideintelligence, are some specific references from the books listed in the bibliography. So, when you write "Probably his finest work is the oratorio The Redeemer, for SATB soloists, chorus and full orchestra, broadcast by the BBC in March 1945." - whose opinion is that? If that's your opinion, that's not acceptable. However, if you said (for example) "Ralph Vaughan Williams considered The Redeemer to be his finest work.", and then cited it, that would be. Rob (talk) 18:26, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

References

This "reference" is mocking and inappropriate. There is no such reference. Are you deliberately trying to set up an edit war? I am going to remove it again and I have taken up your edit warring with Wikipedia. Please also note that the "probably his finest work" phrase has been up for a couple of years or more. Why pick on it now? Time Will Say Nothing (talk) 07:46, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

This page has numerous editors. This editing and commenting targeted exclusively at me is far from appropriate. Time Will Say Nothing (talk) 07:29, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

To answer your earlier question, the info is in the sources and in the autobiography. I'm sure one of the many editors of this page will get around to referencing it properly at some point. Time Will Say Nothing (talk) 07:32, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh for heaven's sake. Of course there is no such reference. No one is suggesting there is. It's just an example of what you need to do to keep the phrase. And there is no grandfather clause for problems with articles, often an old article will be found to have problems after being ignored for a long time. Dougweller (talk) 10:43, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I suggest waiting to find out if that is true or not. The "jokey" tone of the so-called reference is not appropriate and causes offence, even if not to you. Why not just remove it? Or perhaps you enjoy causing offence? Time Will Say Nothing (talk) 14:47, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

And this is Wikipedia, the foundation or whoever you contacted isn't going to get involved. Try WP:ANI which is where you can get the attention of Administrators if you want to complain about edit-warring. Dougweller (talk) 10:45, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Find out if what is true? Dougweller (talk) 16:40, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm a bit disappointed to see that this has been taken so to heart, I was expecting the composer's own grandson to know Vaughan Williams was a friend and musical collaborator with the article's subject (or is there something musicologists don't know? If so, do tell!). Anyway, it was really intended as a lighthearted demonstration of the style of inline references (Disclaimer not the actual content) that other editors are looking for after some of the opinions voiced in the article. Rob (talk) 20:13, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. I've raised this editor's behavour at WP:ANI. Dougweller (talk) 06:37, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Further improvents to the article

Dear Wikipedians – many thanks for the improvements to the article! May I suggest that the next stage for the article is to expand it into sections, starting with an introductory paragraph followed by an overview.

Source Material: apart from Groves, the most easily available biographical sources are:

1) Up to Now - which it could do with a short article of its own; this also applies to Martin's father James Shaw, his mother Charlotte James, and brother Geoffrey Shaw. Frequently referred to as an autobiography, Martin refers to it himself as his reminiscences, which explains why it is all about other people, and not really about himself. 2) EGC's Index to the Story of My Days 3) Elizabeth Montgomery Campbell's article - as listed at the end of the current Grove's Music article on Martin. 4) Erik Routley's 'Centenary Appreciation' which forms the MusicWeb International biography of Martin. This appreciation needs some discussion:

Erik was asked to write this by the family for the 1975 Centenary as he had previously written a biography (which in the end was never published). However, it is quite curtailed; whilst I can understand him glossing over Martin's engagement to Edy Craig, not to mention Martin's working relationships with Mabel Dearmer and Maude Royden – not even to MENTION them, says more about the biographer than it does Martin. There are 5 lines left over at the end of the article, so it is not as if there was no room.

And then, Routley does not quite get his facts right. He does not seem to have consulted Martin's birth certificate for instance - Martin was born in Camberwell, not Belsize Park. And he tells his own story about Martin's appointment to St Mary's Primrose Hill, not Martin's. As a Congregationalist minister Routley tells things from his point of view, making very fair comments on composing church music it has to be said – but when you look at Martin's published list of compositions, and see that he wrote more secular than sacred songs, you can see that Erik has not given equal weight to the secular side of his output. From my memory of that period, the family were so grateful to have Erik write about Martin Shaw at all (he was quite ignored at the time) that they did not question what he had written at all – and believed everything Erik said.

Anyway, righting such wrongs is just what is so brilliant about Wikipedia!

So may I suggest the article develops thus (names indicate my suggestion for a wiki-link to explain the text, though there is probably someone I have left out along the way):

Introductory Paragraph: Martin Shaw OBE D Mus FRSCM (9th March 1875 - 24th October 1958) was an English composer and editor, chiefly of songs, active in the first half of the 20th century. As part of the English Revival movement in the early years of that century, his work preserved the Folk-music heritage of Britain, and raise standards in English Church Music.

Overview: mentions RVW, Percy Dearmer, Maude Royden, Edward Gordon Craig.

Early/Family life: mentions James Shaw, Charlotte Shaw (née James) Geoffrey Shaw Southwold; life at RCM , John Ireland, Gustav Holst, RVW, Coleridge Taylor, Charles Villiers Stanford,

1898 – 1904: James Pryde; Edward Gordon Craig, The Page, Song of the Palanquin Bearers, Purcell Operatic Society, Ellen Terry; Chelsea, Augustus John, John Orpen, Pamela Coleman Smith; Edy Craig, Christabel Marshall.

1905 – 8: Daily Mail, English Hymnal, EGC (again) Isadora Duncan, Strindberg,

1908- 1915: Hampstead, Percy Dearmer, St Mary's Primrose Hill, Christian Socialism, Mabel Dearmer & Morality Play Society, Brer Rabbit.

1916 – 1920: Joan Cobbold, John Ireland, League of Arts; Duncan Jones.

1920 – 1925: St Martin's in the Fields; Dick Sheppard; Songs of Praise; Maude Royden; Guildhouse Services.

1925 – 1935: Oxford Book of Carols, Up to Now, Eleanor Farjeon; Morning has Broken; Curwen; John Masefield, Liverpool Cathedral, Sean O'Casey; Clifford Bax; TS Eliot and The Rock; Christopher Fry.

1935 – 1945: Essex; Blythburgh; The Redeemer (short Oratorio) BBC.

1945 – 1958: Aldburgh Festival, Benjamin Britten, Peter Pears; Southwold

Musical aims and style Legacy

This followed by a list of published works and that useful table of appointments.

Do we need that distracting text box at the side?

Many thanks for reading ix (talk) 13:40, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Some good points for improvement. I think, as you say, the referencing (or lack of) is probably the first thing to sort out. The sections you propose look interesting, although I might suggest that initially those would be suitable topics for paragraphs, as opposed to subheaded sections, which tend to look best when there is enough text to fill them, if that makes sense. I also agree that it would look better without the infobox, which are usually avoided in classical music biographies anyway. The other thing you may or may not be aware of is that a member of Martin Shaw's family wrote some of this article and, um, well, see above. Incidentally, I have copies of Songs of Praise and the Oxford Book of Carols, but are there any CDs/LPs of Shaw's music available to your knowledge? I could find hardly anything on Naxos Music Library or Amazon other than his hymn arrangements, and "Hills of the North", of course. I have to admit I find composers without any recordings rather difficult to be enthused by! Regards, Rob (talk) 18:28, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks Rob! As you say those titles would be better off as paragraphs, they are Boring after all, and would not entice a reader to read on - so 'off with their heads!'. As for recordings, there is a project underway to have around 30 of the songs recorded - it will be the first. Martin Shaw has slipped under the radar on that score; nowadays you don't exist if you don't have your music recorded, but when he was writing it was seen as a tad Flash I think, and bad form - you know, the musical equivalent of infoboxes. Showing off infact. There is one recording of The Redeemer, made by the men and boys choir of St Paul's Cathedral in Detroit, Michigan in 1961. Otherwise the only recordings are the well known hymns and carols in CD compilations.

Reading Up to Now helps one to enthuse about Martin Shaw. You might be able to get one on Abe Books. Apart from the British Library, they have one in the RSCM archive library and at the RCM library - you have to ask though. And I believe they have one to hand at The Lord Nelson pub in Southwold if you are ever there. And I hope that BBC Songs of Praise have kept their copy safe - I gave them one in such good condition that it Still had its dust-cover on!

As for Relatives... why not crack a joke? editing Wikipedia should be fun - after all there's no money in it! Martin Shaw was described in one obituary as having 'the humility of true genius'- I would have expected his relatives to behave like that too. As it happens, the singer George Parker (usefully) quoted Ralph Vaughan Williams (usefully - so it got published, so I can quote it!) in his obituary of Martin Shaw - published in the R.C.M magazine volume 55 page 60 "...of Martin Shaw's compositions I need only say they contain much beautiful music, especially the oratorio The Redeemer which deserves to be widely known." And I will update my profile - which will explain why I have felt obliged to hold off with this article until now.

But! I was pondering a question of style - I am starting a list of Martin's Works, and wondered what the form is with regard to stating publishers? They are not listed on the RVW article and I would hate to do anything that was regarded as flashy. However, I think stating the publisher after the work is a proof of sources, gives more information, makes the music easier to find should a reader wish it, and even if out of print publishers still have them on their list, and can be contacted with regard to that work - e.g. Joseph Williams is now part of Stainer and Bell, who owns the JW list. yours, Isobel. ixo (talk) 13:29, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply - your RVW quote made me chuckle, as it's pretty similar to the controversial demonstration quote. The RVW page on here is a little disappointing - I would recommend that the sort of style to follow are probably the featured articles about Edward Elgar and William Walton, both of whom have respective lists of works on separate pages - List of compositions by Edward Elgar is a particularly good example, as it includes the publishers, dedications, date of publication and so forth, and the table is formatted so it can be searched by a certain field.

I agree about the recordings - I know when I was researching Farrar, I did tend to focus on the works that I was able to listen to, even when other pieces had piano reductions. I guess Shaw has got a bit stuck in that "twilight zone" where composers whose music doesn't get the exposure go out of fashion until a recording is made, but because there are no recordings, people haven't heard of them to make the effort to record them! I suppose the commercial answer to this problem would be to make a CD called "Vaughan Williams and Friends", include the Tallis Fantasia and a few other influential pieces, and then fill the rest up with unrecorded Shaw, Gurney, Howells and Bliss pieces. I'd buy it anyway... Rob (talk) 13:57, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

<<your RVW quote made me chuckle, as it's pretty similar to the controversial demonstration quote>> I thought you'd be amused! And thanks for the hints on listing work - I'll look at the list of compositions by Edward Elgar - seems a good idea to start something similar for MS - I was worried the list would be too long in the article itself. ixo (talk) 10:25, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Infobox

I've just pruned the massive infobox added by a now-banned editor. The entire family tree was there. These boxes are not supposed to be vertical bios and a lot of the material in it was both unreferenced and not in the article. I kept "Relatives" but cut it down to only those who have WP articles. Also per infobox guidelines I removed the external site, which is not Shaw's official site at all and may actually contain factual errors to boot. I'd appreciate it if editors would discuss here before re-adding any of the stuff I've removed. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 06:38, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I suppose technically the relatives section should be as described here. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:58, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Good point, now done. Voceditenore (talk) 07:28, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Bunessan

There is no evidence that I know of which shows that Martin Shaw found Bunessan when he was researching the English Hymnal back in 1904. As it was orignially a carol, it is probable, from correspondence in the Martin Shaw Archive sent by Percy Dearmer, that Martin found the tune whilst researching the Oxford Book of Carols, which had been published shortly before work on the Enlarged version of Songs of Praise began. ixo (talk) 13:45, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Archive

I've added details about the MS Archive, most of which is now with the British Library. ixo (talk) 09:37, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Secular Work

added list of secular work, made from information in the MS archive. ixo (talk) 10:03, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Discography

This recording has been available since 2012 or so, http://delphianrecords.co.uk/product-group/the-airmen-songs-by-martin-shaw/ It could be added to the article. ixo (talk) 08:33, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Posthumous Publications

Don't think the 1969 entry is valid. The Greater Light anthem for double choir, published in 1964, is however, and should be added. https://www.musicroom.com/product-detail/product52548/variant52548/martin-shaw-the-greater-light/ixo (talk) 08:33, 22 September 2018 (UTC)