Jump to content

Talk:Pierre Boulez/Archive 2

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

How many Notations completed?

'His early twelve miniatures for piano, Notations (1945), was, since the 1970s, in the process of being expanded as an orchestral cycle. At least seven movements were completed before Boulez's death, although only five have been performed' This may be right. A further two Notations have been rumoured to be near completion - and were scheduled for performance some years ago, later cancelled. But what's the source that the rumours are true? Dmass (talk) 13:52, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't think we can claim this without a source. My memory, and this is confirmed by the work list on the Universal Edition website, is that Notations 1–4 were orchestrated in 1978 (revised 1984 and 1987), then much later Notations 7 appeared in orchestral form (1997, revised 2004). Has someone perhaps erroneously assumed from this that nos. 5 and 6 must also have been orchestrated? --Deskford (talk) 15:08, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
I've just found the reference to the scheduled premiere of V and VI: 'From the Chicago Sun-Times - March 22, 2006 - Pierre Boulez may be one of classical music's most important composers, but he is notoriously reluctant to sign off on a finished composition. To hardly anyone's surprise, the Chicago Symphony Orchestra has postponed the world premiere of Boulez's "Notations for Orchestra V and VI scheduled for May 25-27. The CSO and conductor Daniel Barenboim will perform "Notations I-V and VII in their place. The "Notations series is an orchestration of short piano pieces Boulez composed in 1945 and began orchestrating decades later. Delays have plagued their first performances by the CSO. The orchestra said "Notations V and VI will be "rescheduled on the CSO subscription series once they are completed. Dmass (talk) 14:00, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Pierre Boulez. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:34, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

New Article Asserting Boulez's Homosexuality

The most recent issue of Contemporary Music Review which focuses on the summer Darmstadt sessions of the 50's and 60's contains an article jointly written by David Osmond-Smith and Paul Attinello which asserts Boulez's homosexuality. I was wondering if anyone else has read this and has thoughts on it. The authors preface the article by stating that much of the information was obtained by casual conversations with listed Darmstadt composers (Attinello). The article discusses Boulez and then Bussotti's interaction with other homosexual and heterosexual composers at Darmstadt. David Osmond-Smith asserts Boulez's homosexuality in the following section:

It is the purpose of this article to suggest the withholding and trace the subsequent assertion of a particularly telling set of interpretive associations within the music of the post-war European generation through examining the interactions between two gay (or, to more accurately reflect the language of the era, homosexual) composers who first came to public attention a decade apart: Pierre Boulez and Sylvano Bussotti. Both came to prominence at a time remarkable for its extreme homophobia. The stylistic vocabulary pioneered by the first strongly influenced the second; but their decisions as to how best to direct the listening mind in its responses differed profoundly. Although Boulez has always maintained a determined defense of his own privacy, he has acknowledged that his first, vivid outburst of works which, even today, maintain their stylistic authority over the fifties avant-garde were produced immediately subsequent to an intense, violently sexual relationship. He has also acknowledged, en passant, his own homosexuality. It is, of course, speculative to assume that this relationship was therefore with another man—a young man may try many paths—but if this was the case, certain features of his early artistic development fall into a pattern that make Sylvano Bussotti’s reaction to them a decade later seem less than quixotic.

http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/titles/07494467.html

Any thoughts? Since there are no citations, I assume that Osmond-Smith is claiming to have garnished this information from the aforementioned talks with other composers, although the claim may be legitimate since Osmond-Smith is a rather significant scholar on the Post-WWII Avant-garde. Joan Peyser does discuss Boulez's mentioned early relationship and characterizes it similarly emotionally as Osmond-Smith, although as I recall she makes little discussion of Boulez's sexuality and uses the incident to further discussion of Boulez's rather removed manner. I'm more interested in Boulez's music than his sexual orientation, but as this was a topic of discussion before I'm interested to know what people think about this and perhaps someone will want to go further with this new weightier source. EFH 22:13, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Through the magic of Wikipedia the original The Guardian source which says "He was devotedly served from the early 1970s by his valet, Hans Messmer" has been transferred into: "He moved to Baden-Baden in the 1960s with his lifelong partner, Hans Messmer, whom he sometimes referred to as his valet". So what does Norman Lebrecht actually say on p.183? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:14, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Norman Lebrecht is cited as the source for this information and it's right that this was what he said on his Slipped Disc website immediately after Boulez's death was announced. But in a more recently published article posted on the same site on 25th February http://slippedisc.com/2016/02/untold-history-pierre-boulez-and-the-nuclear-deterrent/ he is much more ambiguous: 'Among musicians Boulez was a small boy in a playground, sharing in-jokes, revelling in low gossip. There was nothing austere or remote about him. On the contrary, he needed congenial company, craving it perhaps as a substitute for more intimate relationships. Glacially private where the personal was concerned, he shared his home with Hans Messmer, whom he referred to alternately as his “companion” or “valet”. When I once criticised his jacket as being a generation too old for him, he flushed and cried, “But Hans bought it for me!”' Any thoughts? Dmass (talk) 13:13, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
Norman Lebrecht, gossip blogger and author of a pulped book, is not a credible source.Syek88 (talk) 22:56, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Glitch in bibliography?

Something seems to have gone awry under the second bullet-point in the bibliography section. Reference is made to 'Barulich, Frances. 1988' without identifying the title of the work - then a whole series of other titles is referenced (some of them quite important sources). Looks like an editing glitch. Anyone object to my trying to unpick it? Just thought I'd check in case I'm missing something. And does anyone know the title of the Barulich? Dmass (talk) 17:18, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

This item is a review by Frances Barulich of those several source items, published in Notes 45, no. 1. If you read the entry very carefully, you will find everything is present and correct, though admittedly there might be a way of presenting it more clearly.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:36, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
You might move [review of] to the beginning of the list and trim the list (boldly) and insert etc. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 17:52, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, both. How about this:

  • Barulich, Frances. 1988. [Book review of recent publications, including Boulez 1981, Glock 1986 etc]. Notes 2nd series, 45, no. 1 (September): 48–52.

I would then transpose the most significant individual books into the bibliography (if not already there). Dmass (talk) 20:28, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Works for me. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 22:05, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Incorporate 'Boulez as a Performer' into biographical section?

Would anyone object if I merged the material about Boulez as a pianist / jobbing performer which is presently in a separate section into the general biography section? Most of it would fit nicely into 1946-58 and would complement the stuff about his work with Barrault / early professional activities.Dmass (talk) 13:39, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:44, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Is it possible to remove the 'text thanslation' banner at the top of the page? Dmass (talk) 21:44, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I would support removing it. If there are specific areas covered in the French article that are not covered here, then people can raise them here. I see you've been doing much work on this article recently. Many thanks for this! --Deskford (talk) 22:02, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
No problem.Dmass (talk) 06:31, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Any suggestions for a sub-title for biography section 1992-2006?

The only ones I can think of are dull ('International Conducting Career 2') or flippant ('Grand Old Man')... Dmass (talk) 15:59, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Assessment comment

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

Comment(s)Press [show] to view →
==Composers Project Assessment of Pierre Boulez: 2024-11-22==

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

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

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

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

  • No discussion of his childhood, parents, early family life.

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

  • Good musical bio. No personal details.

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

  • Good musical bio. No personal details.

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

  • List of musical compositions is given. Who publishes his music? Has he published any books (since he also writes)? (A select bibliography of notable articles by him might also be appropriate. These should be listed separately from the reference material used to source the article.)

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

  • Good

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

  • Article needs more images. It could use audio clips of his works and his conducting.

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

  • Article is well-referenced, so-so on inline citations.

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

  • Mostly good. The lead is too short. If he has publications (written), a selection should be listed in a separate bibliographic section. His music publisher(s) should be identified.

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

  • Article requires more inline citations (WP:CITE)
  • Article lead needs work (WP:LEAD)
  • Article footer material needs organization (WP:LAYOUT) (bibliography of his writing)
  • Article needs (more) images and/or other media (MOS:IMAGE)

===Summary=== This is well-written professional biography. It is lacking in personal details. In the absence of details, mention should be made if Boulez guards his privacy. Short mention is made of his writing; if it's really notable, perhaps more space should be devoted to it. If he has written books (or had articles collected into them), a separate bibliographic section should list (some of) them, or (if long enough) a separate article. As a composer whose works are still under copyright, his publishers should probably be identified.

The article's lead is too short; WP:LEAD specifies that the lead should summarize the main points of the article. The article should probably have more images (not necessarily of the subject), and, if they can be acquired, audio samples of his works and conducting.

While the article is well-referenced, it probably does not have enough inline citations to pass a GA review (which will probably also raise other issues I'm describing here).

This article is B-class, but a fair amount of work may be needed for A (primarily the biographic shortcomings). Magic♪piano 19:22, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Last edited at 19:22, 19 November 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 02:58, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Glitch in bibliography, revisited

I note that Dmass has reverted my recent edit, in which I corrected the bibliography entry for one of the cited sources (and the corresponding inline citation) to conform with the referencing format generally established for this article, which appears to be WP:SFN. I have too much respect for Dmass's efforts on behalf of this article to disregard this seemingly careless opposition to WP:CITEVAR, and can only assume the unstated intention is to change the citation style to something else. Admittedly, the citations contain a number of other examples of non-conforming formats, which I have been sporadically trying to clean up for several years now, though with considerable erosion over time. If Dmass (or any other editors) have a position on what the citation format ought to be for this article, I think the time to discuss it is now, before even more variant formats are introduced.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:50, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Firstly, my apologies to Jerome. My reversion of his edit was indeed careless, but only in the sense that I was trying to do it on my iPad (whilst watching TV) and accidentally hit the Save button before I’d finished my explanation – hence its rather gnomic quality. I’m grateful for an opportunity to explain.
I’m certainly not trying to change the citation style - I thought I was complying with it. When I started working on the article a couple of months back, I looked carefully at this page as it stood and also took a couple of other pages as models when I hit a problem (Britten and Stockhausen, both of which seemed to me to be excellent in different ways). On the question of citations, the existing style on the Boulez page - which I agree was not entirely consistent - seemed closer to the Britten model and so I’ve followed that when in doubt.
- Books and academic articles are given full citations under Bibliography (called ‘Sources’ on the Britten page): e.g. Gilly, Cécile. 2003. Boulez on Conducting. Conversations with Cécile Gilly, translated by Richard Stokes. London: Faber and Faber. ISBN 0-571-21967-5.
- When the text cites the book, a short-form reference then appears under References: e.g. [159] Gilly, 137.
- When a newspaper or magazine article (or website) is cited, however, it is fully cited under References and does not appear in the Bibliography.
- If it is cited more than once a multiple reference tag is created: e.g. Ref [5] (the Roger Nichols obituary).
The advantage of this approach seems to me to be this: if every newspaper article is cited in full in the Bibliography – and also cited in short-form under References – the already very long Bibliography will be even longer. Rather than consisting of books / articles, each of which is likely to be a source of information on a variety of facts, it will be cluttered with sources which reference only one fact.
The citation which Jerome queried and which I reverted is a case in point. It’s an article in the Chicago Sun Times which I cited (badly, I agree – it was one of my early attempts!) and is good for one point: the fact that Notations V and VI were scheduled for performance in 2006 and then cancelled, it contains nothing else of interest. To me it seemed otiose to put it in both Bibliography and References, the latter will add nothing as (like most newspaper articles) there is no page number to identify.
For what it’s worth, I’d like to continue with the approach set out above as I think it’s clear, user-friendly and saves space. But I know from talk pages here and elsewhere that others have strong views on the subject … Dmass (talk) 11:33, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for the explanation, which makes a certain amount of sense. Nevertheless, it results in at least two different citation styles (contrary to WP:CITESTYLE, and the use of citation templates alone causes conflicts with the style used in the bibliography (for example, years of publication are not enclosed in brackets in the bibliography, nor are journal volumes boldfaced, but the templates enforce these style features). I had not noticed the double style in the Britten article, which I agree is well-referenced; I hope the Stockhausen article is both well-referenced and consistent in citation style (since it is largely my work), though of course it uses parenthetical referencing, unlike the present Boulez article. What worries me most about this double-standard approach is that there are already more than two citation styles in place, and the same argument you are making could be made in defense of having a different style for every different type of source (monograph, collective work, encyclopedia article, academic-journal article, popular-magazine article, newspaper article, e-zine article, online blog, etc.). This clearly will not do. Consequently, it seems to me that, even assuming the dual-style approach can be justified as an exception to WP:CITESTYLE (which is, after all, only a guideline), it needs to be more carefully thought out. For example, are the exceptional full-inline citations to be used only for newspaper articles? If so, does this apply to newspaper articles cited more than once in the text? If not, why not? Perhaps closer scrutiny of the citations in the Britten article will suggest answers to some of these questions.
As for the multiple-reference tags, these are generated automatically for SFNs if the {{sfn}} template is used, instead of <ref></ref> markup. This raises another question: The bibliography currently lacks anchors, to which the SFNs may be linked. Should we not add such anchors (using the "wikicite" template would leave the formatting undisturbed) and implement links from the inline citations (using either the SFN templates in place of <ref></ref> markup, or by embedding {{harvnb}} templates within the footnotes)?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:21, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
Thanks very much for the detailed and interesting reply. You've raised a number of points which I hadn't spotted and I agree that some careful thought needs to be given to this. It seems a general spring clean of citations is overdue (and it looks like you've already made a start). As you suggested I've gone back to the Britten page and done a bit of forensic comparing with ours. Some initial proposals follow.
In fact, the equivalent to our Bibliography on the Britten page contains only books. Everything else (journals, newspaper articles, websites etc.) is cited separately under References. That seems to me potentially to address two of your concerns (why should newspapers articles be treated differently to any other non-book source? / why should articles referred to more than once be in References rather than Bibliography?). I suggest we strip out all the non-books from our Bibliography and move them to References. De-cluttering the Bibliography also makes it more user-friendly for readers who are just looking for books for further reading.
I think we would also have to do the reverse and put any books that are separately cited under References into the Bibliography. I've just noticed, for example, that I have blithely given the Otto Klemperer Conversations book its own full inline citation (at Ref [162]) and not put it in the Bibliography.
At various points in the Bibliography (e.g. Anon 2008) previous editors have included the page reference with the book itself. Clearly that should be cited separately under References (assuming we can work out where it belongs).
I would also propose that books which appear in the Bibliography but have not actually been cited under References should come out altogether. Again, an example of mine: I put the Aguila book in, anticipating I would be referencing it quite a bit in the section on the Domaine musical. In fact, it's such a badly organised book (in my view, at least) that I gave up trying to find the info I needed in it and looked elsewhere.
As for conflicts of style in citing books, the Britten Bibliography is rigorous in using the book citation template. All the entries in ours have been produced 'manually' (certainly when I've added books I've just mimicked what previous editors had done). The only substantive difference that I can see is the one you identify: brackets round the date are enforced by the template; with a few exceptions our dates are unbracketed. Two ways of solving this: we go through the Bibliography and manually ensure all the dates are bracketed (or unbracketed, whichever is preferred); or we go through it and convert each entry using the template. The latter approach will, of course, be much more labour-intensive.
When pages in books are cited under References, the Boulez and Britten approaches are similar (not a phrase you would have heard in their lifetimes): the date is only given if the author has more than one book to their name and is given - always in brackets on the Britten page, mostly in brackets on the Boulez page; the only other difference is that the Britten editors use ", p.10", the Boulez editors just ", 10". If anyone has particularly strong feelings about either issue, I would have thought they could both be corrected in an hour or so.
Your last para on multiple ref tags rather went over my head: I don't know what an anchor is, I'm afraid. Needless to say, if it will improve the article, I'm all for it. You'll just have to spell it out a bit for me (or direct me to the relevant guidance).
Look forward to hearing your (and others') thoughts about this. Once we've agreed a way forward I'm sure we'll be able to resolve these issues with a bit of effort over the next few weeks. Dmass (talk) 10:56, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
I have now had a chance to scrutinise the citation system used in the Benjamin Britten article, and I must say I have some doubts about it. It is not quite consistent in listing all books in the Bibliography. For example, at note 23 there is a citation to a book edited by Lara Feigel and Alexandra Harris, formatted as if it were to an online site (the link actually goes to a GoogleBooks preview), and at footnote 148 a book found in the bibliography is given a full citation. The Bibliography also contains three chapters contributed to collective works (entries for Colin Graham, William Mann, and Myfanwy Piper), but there are conflicting treatments of this same kind of entry at notes 28 (Donald Mitchell), 57 (Philip Brett "et al.", which should appear in the bibliography with the "et al." names given in full), and 245 (Who Was Who entry). I mention all this because of the uncertainty some editors have clearly felt about which of these two types of sources some references belong to. It seems to me that this method invites trouble, not only because it may confuse editors, but because there are genuinely marginal cases involved. Dictionaries and encyclopedias are books, for example, but should the articles contained in them be treated like journal articles? Are chapters contributed to collective works articles, or should they be treated as books? Should not all the works by a recognised authority like Philip Brett—in the case of the Britten article—be listed together, rather than split into two types of references? I would say that these are serious flaws that argue against taking a split-category approach to citations. The problem is further intensified in the Britten article (but not here with the Boulez, thankfully) by the use of content notes as well as citation notes.
On a related subject, and in response to some of your questions, the abbreviation SFN refers to "short foonote" citations, and there is a Wikipedia template for use with these. Examples of the SFN style abound in the Britten article, but it does not take advantage of either the SFN or HARV templates' ability to link to the corresponding items in the bibliography. In order to do this, it is necessary to place a target marker (called an "anchor") in the bibliography. This can be done in a number of different ways. The simplest, from our present point of view (because it does not require reformatting the entire reference system) is, as I mentioned, to use the "wikicite" template, which embeds an anchor named "harvid" containing the author, author-short-title, or author-year citation as it will appear in the inline citation in the text. The various alternative citation templates ({{citation}}, {{cite book}}, {{cite journal}}, etc.) will also provide anchors for SFN citations, though some of them require a parameter "ref=harv" in order for this to be implemented.
One of the most trying aspects of citations on Wikipedia is that there is no single "house style", which means that it becomes practically necessary to be familiar with dozens or even hundreds of different citation styles and a host of templates using a variety of parameter syntaxes. Most editors will simply throw in the format they are most familiar with, and leave it to others to reformat things to match the established style of an article. This can become tricky when an article deliberately sets out to accommodate two or more conflicting citation styles (which involves a great deal more than simply whether to use SFNs, full-footnotes, or parenthetical referencing). Not only will editors be dropping in references in a third, fourth, or fifth "unauthorised" format, but it may be difficult to know which of the established formats the new interloper should be changed to. I must therefore argue against deviating from the WP:CITESTYLE guideline, and in favour of deciding on a single style to use here.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:42, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
Thanks again for another helpful response.
I don't think the fact that there may be some glitches on the Britten page invalidates its overall approach (which has gained it FA status, after all). I imagine that, if you were to point them out to the principal editors there, they would be able to resolve them without too much trouble - assuming they agreed.
The risk of an inexperienced editor coming new to a page and getting the style wrong seems to seems to me to be endemic, precisely because within each major citation style (inline citation / parenthetical etc.) there are a host of sub-styles. It's unrealistic to expect everyone to be familiar with them. There are two solutions: one is the traditional one of kindly fellow-editors tidying up the mistakes and pointing the new editor in the right direction (as, incidentally, you yourself did when I made my first Wikipedia edits on another page a few years back); the other is simply to set out the main points about the page's 'house style' in a handy guide at the top of the Talk page, something I'd also be in favour of.
I agree that the use of a 'dual' approach throws up some marginal cases but I think they can all be dealt with by making sensible judgment calls, advertising them to new users and then sticking to them.
One issue which you haven't addressed is proportionality. If every source - newspaper article, website, no matter that it is only cited once and no matter that it has no page numbers to refer to - has to go into the Bibliography in order to appear again in References, the already very long Bibliography will be even longer.
In short, I continue to be in favour of maintaining the 'dual' approach and trying to agree some practical steps to standardise - and advertise - its application. Dmass (talk) 12:12, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
I like the idea of putting a "local" house style guide on the Talk page. The only problem I foresee is preventing it disappearing, at some future date, into the black hole of archived discussions. I did not mean to suggest that the Britten page should be denied its FA status simply because of the flaws I found in the citations. My intention was to highlight the inherent dangers of a dual-format citation design. Perhaps my view of Bibliographies is different from yours, and probably different from most readers'. Proportionality is not an issue for me, because the value I see in bibliographies is that they put the entire list of sources consulted together in one orderly arrangement. This doubtless has more value to editors than to the general reader. The editor who comes to an article on a subject about which he is well-informed will be aware of not only the most important sources, but also the minor ones which have special bearing on one aspect or another. It is tedious in longer articles with many citations to sift through the footnotes in order to find wheter there are any items tyhat have been overlooked. Electronic search of texts makes this musch easier than with print items, of course, but sometimes an author's name does not immediately leap to mind, and doing an electronic search for "whoever that was who wrote the devastating but wrong-headed review of such-and-such a piece that started the rumour that the composer had been subsisting for years only on ketchup" does not work very well. Computers have come a long way, but associational-thought searches are still a thing of the future. An alphabetical bibliography is much more useful, in that it can be scanned for both familiar and unfamiliar names, reliable as well as undependable authors. Of course there is no reason not to have such bibliographies even with article that use full-footnote citations. After all, this has been standard practice for scholarly books for nearly two centuries now. It is only on Wikipedia that I find the absence of full lists of sources normal for article using full-footnote citation style. Naturally, SFN or parenthetical referencing requires such a list, so that mixing full-footnote and SFN references (on Wikipedia, at least) results in an incomplete bibliography.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:11, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
Yes I do see the distinction you make about the different uses of bibliographies for specialists / general readers – but doesn’t that tend to suggest that shorter bibliographies are more appropriate for Wikipedia, which is quintessentially a resource for the general reader (although a good page should still satisfy the specialist)?
It occurs to me that one reason why this is such an issue on the Boulez page is that the three main sources of biographical material (Peyser, Heyworth and Jameux) stop in the mid-1980s which is why we have to turn to so many fragmentary sources - in particular newspaper articles and interviews - to fill in the gaps. My reluctance to include everything in the Bibliography in this instance is that it will be cluttered with (necessary) micro-sources – but I’m repeating myself.
I’m not sure where this leaves us. I sense that our respective positions are closer than they were when we started this discussion. How do you think we should move forward? It would be good to be able to get on with the citation clean-up whatever we decide – and also to focus again on the substantive revisions. It seems to me the two sections which need most work are Writing and Compositions. I was particularly hoping you might be tempted to have a look at the latter: there are some real gaps there – nothing on Pli selon pli, Repons, …explosante-fixe…, Derive 2 etc. Dmass (talk) 12:50, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
What we badly need here is input from other editors. We clearly have a disagreement (however amicable) about whether a double-format approach to citations is desirable, and I would very much like to hear some other opinions/arguments on the subject.
I wonder if we are overlooking some biographical sources that date from later than the 1980s. This is one point where the disadvantage of full-footnote citations becomes apparent. I can see in the bibliography, for example, that the Di Pietro conversation book (2001) and Ulrich Mosch's dissertation on Le marteau (2004) are both included, but there is a fairly recent French-language biography that is missing. Unfortunately, I cannot at the moment remember the author, and my copy is sealed up in a box in deep storage. (Ordinarily, I would be able to walk up to the shelf and pluck it down to obtain the required information, but searching the footnotes here to see if it is mentioned just once is virtually impossible.)
We have got articles on Pli selon pli, Répons, and ...explosante-fixe..., though not (I think) on Dérive. Surely there should be some useful (mainly historical) information that could be distilled from those articles, as a start. I will be glad to take a look at this particular aspect.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:21, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
Are you thinking of Philippe Olivier's Pierre Boulez - Le maître et son marteau? That's 2005 and contains a lot of interesting biographical info but (as I'm sure you know) is very focussed on a central thesis about Boulez's relationship with France / Germany.
But I agree with you. It would be very good to hear some other views. Dmass (talk) 12:50, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Yes, Olivier is the source I was thinking about and, yes, I am aware of the particular axe he is grinding. I see it is in the alphabetical list (and I still couldn't spot it!), but is not actually cited anywhere in the text. As such, it belongs in a "Further reading" section, I think. Are we really the only two editors who care about this page? That seems preposterous.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 16:34, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:19, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Marteau para

Looking at the following para on Marteau in the Composition section:

"Boulez described one of the work's innovations, called "pitch multiplication", in several articles, most importantly in the chapter "Musical Technique" in Boulez 1971. It was Lev Koblyakov, however, who first described its presence in the three "L'artisanat furieux" movements of Le marteau sans maître,[139] in his 1981 doctoral thesis.[140] However, an explanation of the processes themselves was not made until 1993.[141] Other techniques used in the "Bourreaux de solitude" cycle were first described by Ulrich Mosch,[142] and later fully elaborated by him.[143]"

It seemed to me that it references techniques - and when they were identified (possibly in a little too much detail?) - without saying what they are. I'm reluctant to suggest an amendment myself as I don't have access to the texts cited. Anyone have any thoughts? Dmass (talk) 16:36, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, of course pitch multiplication is a technique, but surely you have access to at least some of these sources. Boulez 1971 is Boulez on Music Today, and the translation does get in the way of understanding the concept. If memory serves, Boulez also described the technique in Relevés d'apprenti. Koblyakov's dissertation is published as the book, Boulez: A World of Harmony, listed in the bibliography with a link to GoogleBooks, unfortunately only a "snippet view" version. I have the two Mosch sources (somewhere, in the chaos after recently moving house). How can I help?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:03, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for getting back, Jerome. As it stands it just seems to be more about the musicologists than about the composer - and it doesn't say what pitch multiplication is. If you could redress the balance, perhaps reducing the number of sources, that would be great (for me, anyway, others may disagree...) Dmass (talk) 21:05, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
Your point is well-taken. It may not be easy to explain briefly what pitch-multiplication is (although it is not complicated in itself), and its workings are certainly more important to the article on Le marteau than it is here. There is a link to the section of Multiplication (music in which the technique is discussed in some detail, so a full explanation is hardly appropriate in this article. The musicologists thing doesn't really belong here at all, I think, but at the moment it is just about all that there is. It would also be useful to mention other works in which Boulez used this device, as well as its use by other composers. I'll see what I can come up with.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 01:03, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
Great, thanks very much. Dmass (talk) 09:47, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

I've done some work on the External Links section. Any views on whether the maintenance tag can now be removed?Dmass (talk) 19:28, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

There are numerous links to WP articles on individual Boulez works, some when the work is first mentioned in the article, some in the compositions section, some in the list of works. What's the best approach? Dmass (talk) 12:32, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

I think that is a good general question relevant to composers in general. Perhaps ask there, WT:COMPOSERS. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:40, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
Links should definitely be used a) on 1st occurrence; b) in the list of compositions. Beyond that, WP:REPEATLINK applies, i.e. repeat links are fine when it helps the reader, e.g. when terms are far apart. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:19, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
If mentioned in the lead, it should be repeated there also. - I thought about Poulenc, where the list of works is separate, but a section about his work repeats some work titles, others come up a first time. I think we could argue that a reader who wants to see only that section should have all links, whether the piece came up before or not. I don't want to change that article too much, so didn't make those changes. What do you think? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:55, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, both, for your helpful responses. I'm keen that a reader only looking at one section shouldn't miss the link - especially given the quality of the individual articles. Taking Marteau as an example, my preference would be to link (1) in the lead, second para (2) In Biography/1954-59, third para (3) In Compositions/Le marteau sans maître and (subject to my next question) (4) in Selected Compositions. Too many?
The other question, which has only just occurred to me, is: do we still need a Selected Compositions list? All the major pieces are referred to in the Compositions section and there is a separate, and comprehensive, list of works... Dmass (talk) 09:47, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
I agree that we don't need the section. We have the navbox also, and pieces not in there should get an article ;) - Btw, the Marteau is in prep to be linked from the Main page on Friday. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:32, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, Gerda. I'll leave it for a couple of days though, see if anyone pops up with an objection. Great work on Poulenc, by the way! Dmass (talk) 21:31, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Francis Bacon

Did Boulez knew Francis Bacon (1561-1626) personally? I don;t think so!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.74.246.198 (talk) 06:36, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Well spotted - link now fixed so that it goes to the right Francis Bacon (1909-1992). Thanks! Dmass (talk) 07:43, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:06, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Pierre Boulez/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Tim riley (talk · contribs) 12:09, 29 April 2018 (UTC)


Starting first read-through. More anon. Tim riley talk 12:09, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Initial comments

Let me say at the outset that unless on second or subsequent readings I find some problem that hasn't been apparent during a first reading I shall certainly be promoting this article to GA. But it is inordinately long – more than twice the median word count of existing Featured Articles on classical composers – and will therefore take me some time to review in the detail it demands. Here, meanwhile, are a few points I jotted down during my first perusal:

  • 1946–1953: Early career in Paris
    • "Barrault needed someone to play the instrument" – what instrument? (Ondes Martinot from the previous para, perhaps, but it isn't clear).
      • it is the ondes Martenot. I've combined the first two paras, does that solve it? I'd rather avoid repeating ondes Martenot if I can as its a bit of a mouthful. Tried shortening it to 'the ondes' but that looks odd. Dmass (talk) 09:53, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
  • 1971–1977: London and New York
    • "it was praised as one of the great Wagner productions" – by whom? As I recall, it was regarded by the irreverent as unintentionally hilarious but I don't remember a consensus that it was "great".
      • Point taken. You're right it got some very bad press in the first year when it was undercooked. I'm away from home and books for the next week but will find something more precise for this. Dmass (talk) 09:57, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
      • I think Millingon captures the point neatly. I see this is also where I got the 'unprecedented naturalism' point in the Opera section and have linked that to this article too. Dmass (talk) 17:51, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
    • "Perhaps unsurprisingly, few new works emerged" – WP:EDITORIAL which will have to go.
      • Gone
    • "scarcely less groundbreaking than the Ring" – says who?
    • "each of which focussed" – if, as appears, this is in BrE, "focused" is wanted here. It's one of those odd spellings like "biased", "budgeted", and "benefited" that haven't got the double letter one might reasonably expect.
  • 1992–2006: Return to conducting
    • "Le sacre du printemps" – you called it The Rite of Spring earlier. No obvious reason to be internally inconsistent.
  • Character and personal life
  • Opera
    • On the basis that we should where possible refer to people by the name they prefer, it would be a courtesy to pipe Bernard Shaw, though of course I can't insist on it.

I'll return to a thorough rereading and review in midweek, I hope. But, as I say, the quality of this article is not in doubt. Tim riley talk 21:51, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Detailed comments

Here they are. I may amend or add over the next few days if I reread the article once again, but this is the bulk of what I have to offer by way of suggestion and comment.

  • Lead
    • "Boulez studied at the Conservatoire de Paris" – in the main text he studied at the Paris Conservatoire. Either seems fine, but it would be as well to be consistent.
      • Changed later ref
    • "a reputation which softened" – do reputations soften? Seems a curious word.
    • Third para: MOS:JOBTITLES bids us prune the capital letters from such job titles as Chief Conductor.
      • Done
    • "he received 26 Grammy Awards" – this verges on trivia in an article about classical music. There are more important awards for recordings of serious music, such as the Grand Prix du Disque and the Gramophone awards which should be mentioned in preference if you must drag in awards. As these Grammies receive precisely three words in the main text, in a section that gives more space to the University of Louisville Grawemeyer Award for Music Composition I doubt that they merit mention in the lead.
  • 1925–1943: Childhood and school days
  • 1943–1946: Musical education
    • "Olivier Messiaen" – perhaps link at first mention in the main text.
    • "René Leibowitz, a follower of Schoenberg" – rather more than that: wasn't he a pupil of Schoenberg?
      • He claimed to be, but wasn't. According to WP he studied with Ravel (of all people...)
        • Well, well! No-one has told the author of Grove's article on Boulez, which asserts sans phrase that Leibowitz was "Schoenberg's pupil". The Grove article on Leibowitz says there is no substantiation for the claim. I have dropped the editor a line pointing out the contradictory statements. (I don't think Leibowitz studied with Ravel either. The source cited for that claim in the WP article doesn't mention Ravel, and there is no mention of Leibowitz in any of the books on Ravel that I consulted when overhauling the Ravel article for FAC.) Tim riley talk 09:41, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
    • "the only member of Messiaen's class to achieve this distinction" – do you mean the only one in that year or the only one tout court?
    • "organized a petition" – the article seems mostly to go for –ise endings, and the few –ize endings (organized, specializing, apologized) strike an obtrusive note. (Of course the ones in quotations needn't, probably shouldn't, be changed.)
      • Corrected. The random '-ized's are just spellcheck butting in. Will change the rest when I get home and have a Find/Replace function.
  • 1946–1953: Early career in Paris
    • "Music Director" – see MOS:JOBTITLES and change to lower case, I'd say.
    • "whilst leaving him time" – I'm never sure what "whilst" has got that "while" hasn't except for an extra letter and a slightly fusty air. There are four other whilsts in the text, too.
    • "in 1951 they gave a season of plays at St James's Theatre in London at the invitation of Laurence Olivier" – this is the sort of incidental detail that is admirable in a book, but is surplus to requirements in an encylopaedia article. How does the name of the theatre, or its manager, however eminent, matter in an article about Boulez's life and works? I don't speak ex cathedra: I'm sometimes just as guilty in such matters, but as editors it is our job to sift out everything that is not of central importance to the topic.
      • Cut. I think I just liked the idea of the young PB knocking around with Olivier.
    • "Théâtre de l'Odéon" – no harm in linking to Odéon-Théâtre de l'Europe.
    • "In October 1951, whilst Boulez was in London" – is this relevant to a row in Germany?
      • The point was just that Boulez wasn't actually present for one of the big scandals of his career. Perhaps it doesn't matter though - your thoughts?
  • 1954–1959: The Domaine Musical
    • The MoS asks us to avoid definite articles in headers where possible. I think this one would be OK without the article, but if you disagree I shall not argue.
    • "he started a concert series at the Petit Marigny theatre, which became known as the Domaine Musical" – was it the series or the theatre that became so known? (I know the answer, but it should be made clear here.)
    • "The concerts focussed" – "focused", for preference.
    • "the programmes inordinately long" – I can well believe it, but the adverb is a matter of opinion unless cited.
    • " Boulez had to turn to wealthy private patrons for support, in particular Suzanne Tézenas" – as she has no article, you should, I think, either explain who she was or (preferably) delete her name. "Wealthy private patrons" is all we need to know in this context. (Incidentally, "wealthy" for "rich" is one of Fowler's "genteelisms", like "assist" for "help" or "perspire" for "sweat": not incorrect but a bit refained and better avoided in my view.)
    • "Baden-Baden" – link?
    • "Le Marteau sans maître" – see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Titles#Translations and consider adding an English translation ("I'm Sorry I Haven't a Clou"?)
    • "première" – although I personally prefer to use the grave accent, I think there is a majority view that the word is now at home enough in English to do without a diacritical mark.
    • "according to Peyser" – Peyser pops up here without introduction or being put in context. You call her "the biographer Joan Peyser" later on, but it would be better to do so here instead. In passing, are you confident that she is a reliable source? Her biography of Bernstein, I recall, was much criticised for sensationalism.
      • Clarified (and adjusted later ref accordingly) and added link. Peyser is an important source, particularly about Boulez's childhood as she interviewed his family, teachers etc. She's frequently cited in more recent biographical writings, though sometimes with caution. Unlike Bernstein, there was nothing sensational to reveal about Boulez - or else she missed it - so she concentrated on trying to psychoanalyse him (badly). I happened to pick up a second-hand copy with a long inscription by PB to Sidonie Goossens, from which it's clear that he disliked both Peyser and the book (but was very fond of Goossens). Dmass (talk) 13:04, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
  • 1959–1971: International conducting career
    • Second paragraph: I wonder why you don't link the orchestras?
    • "Stravinsky's Le Sacre du Printemps" – the current score is Le Sacre 4: The Rite 2. A full-time score of six-nil for one side or the other would be a good result.
    • "riotous premiere" – if you insist on "première" above, you should be consistent here.
    • "Jean-Louis Barrault" – no need to link to him again here, surely? Do we even need his full name repeating here, rather than just surname? And, really, do we need to know who designed the costumes and scenery?
    • "the critical response was unanimously favourable" – do your two sources say "unanimously"? I can't recall any performance of anything which all published notices praised.
    • "Wagner's Parsifal" – first mention of Wagner in the main text: perhaps a link?
    • "—after Hans Knappertsbusch died—" it won't be obvious to many readers why this was a prerequisite for Wieland's invitation to Boulez. I think you should either explain that Kna had a monopoly of Parsifals at Bayreuth or (preferably) delete mention of him here.
    • "Pelléas et Mélisande" – you've linked to the article on the play rather than the one on the opera.
    • "appointed the conservative Marcel Landowski Director of Music" – director of music of what or where?
    • "Principal Guest Conductor" – more caps we could do without
    • The Manual of Style would have us link Boston, Chicago and Los Angeles, but if you think that rather excessive I shall not demur.
    • "Éclat, a short and brilliant piece" – says who?
  • 1971–1977: London and New York
    • The first sentence is a touch editorial, though I think you just about get away with it. But you need links to the place, the pianist and the composer.
    • "Controller of Music … Chief Conductor" – more caps we don't need.
    • "Director of the Bayreuth Festival" – no need to capitalise "director"
    • "Richard Wagner's Der Ring des Nibelungen" – I think I see why you've given the composer's given name as well as surname here, but you haven't done so in the previous section apropos of Wieland and Parsifal.
    • "Cummings ist der Dichter" – I think (though I'm not certain) we should follow the capitalisation used by Boulez ("cummings ist...."), rather than following the MoS, or indeed, common sense.
      • There was a bit of an edit skirmish about this a while back (not involving me) and the eventual outcome was that capitalised is right. I've checked again and that's the way it appears on the front cover of the Universal Edition score - and in Claude Samuel's list of works, in a book PB was involved in. Common sense must have prevailed. Dmass (talk) 20:24, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
    • "Barrault's stage adaptation of Nietzsche's Ainsi parla Zarathoustra" is in a linguistic no-man's-land. I daresay Barrault's show was called Ainsi parla Zarathoustra, but I'm not sure it should be called "an adaptation of Nietzsche's Ainsi parla Zarathoustra" in an English article. It would be fine to do so in a French article, of course, but in an English one, I reckon it was either an adaptation of Nietzsche's Also sprach Zarathustra or an adaptation of Nietzsche's Thus Spoke (or Spake) Zarathustra.
  • 1977–1992: IRCAM
  • 1992–2006: Return to conducting
    • "the Ensemble Intercontemporain and the CSO" – the CSO is no doubt the Chicago Symphony Orchestra, and as this is the only time you have used the abbreviation, I'd be inclined to spell out the orchestra's name in full here rather than bothering to explain the abbreviation, which you should otherwise do.
    • "in the Swiss town of Basel" – I think the burghers of Basel might be a bit miffed to see their city described as a mere town.
    • "A police spokesman apologized" – another unexpected z.
    • "This period also marked a return to the opera house. He worked with Peter Stein …" – There has grown a belief, not based on the MoS as far as I can see, that the first mention of a person in any paragraph should be the name, and not a pronoun. I think this is silly – the ODNB, Grove etc don't have such a dogmatic rule – and I have no objection to your "he" and "his" near the start of paragraphs, but I think the "he" here would read more smoothly as "Boulez".
    • Links: Pelléas et Mélisande doesn't need one (linked earlier) but Welsh National Opera does, as do the other venues in the sentence.
    • "At the Théâtre du Châtelet in Paris" – I don't think we need be told twice in two sentences that the Châtelet is in Paris.
    • "Ditto that Pierrot lunaire is by Schoenberg.
    • "Anja Silja " – why not link?
    • "focussed in particular" – again, we could do without the otiose double s.
  • Last years
  • Juvenilia and student works
    • There is a certain amount of inconsistency in capitalising types of composition here: "a sonata for violin and piano" but "parts of the Quartet".
  • Douze notations and the work in progress
  • First published works
    • "Sonatine pour flûte et piano" – the MoS bids us eschew italics for generic titles such as Symphony No 1 etc, and I reckon Sonatine pour flûte et piano is one such. I also wonder why it is necessary to have it in French.
      • Stripped of italics and anglicised. Dmass (talk) 20:14, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
        • Quoi? Are you going to amend Verdi's La Traviata to the Fallen Woman or Cosi fan tutte to Thus Do They All?! There is no such work as the Sonatina in Boulez's output (as opposed to Clementi's, where they are legion) - there is however a Sonatine. I do not know of a single academic work that refers to the piece in question as a Sonatina, and it is not hard for readers to grasp it in the original French (as was remarked about Quatour). Knucmo2 (talk) 11:53, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
    • "Le Soleil des eaux" – a translation in brackets might be a kindness. I suppose Complainte du lézard amoureux is adequately explained later in the sentence.
    • "La Sourg" – if that means this, a link might help.
  • Total serialism
  • Le Marteau sans maître
  • Middle-period works
  • Works with electronics
  • Unfinished works
  • Character and personal life
    • "dodecaphonic music is USELESS" – Boulez may have used all caps, but we don't. This should be in lower case, and italicised for emphasis.
      • My preference is for it to stay. It's a well-known quotation from an article in which Boulez used all caps, which are often reproduced when quoted in other published texts - and I think it captures his peculiar belligerence. Dmass (talk) 09:15, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
    • "Patrice Chéreau … the era of Regietheater." – you really must cite such an assertion. It is unfair to blame Chéreau for Regietheater without very clear evidence for the accusation. I suppose Walter Legge's comment is ad rem: "If producers and scenic designers are allowed to continue their writing of graffiti and vulgarity and stupidity on masterpieces as you experienced in Fidelio and Così—not to mention Chéreau at Bayreuth—we shall be forced to insist that they write the libretto and music to match the rubbish they put on the stage!"
      • It turns out the substance of the assertion is in the Kozzinn obituary, which I cited at the end of the para. I've added a direct quotation from him, which is nicely plain-speaking (without foaming at the mouth as Legge does). Dmass (talk) 17:30, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
    • "He later turned to the German playwright Heiner Müller" – the he is presumably Boulez, but the text reads as though it is Genet.
  • Recording
    • The singers in the first two paras need links, as do those mentioned later in the section.
    • "The LSO also contributed" – the abbreviation has not appeared earlier, and I think you should at some convenient point, perhaps the first mention in the whole text, write "the London Symphony Orchestra (LSO)".
    • "Ravel" – this is the first mention of him in the main text (which prompts the passing thought that this seems odd if Ravel was indeed core repertoire for Boulez, as the lead asserts) and could well be linked.
      • Linked. I think it's pretty uncontroversial that Ravel was core repertoire: he recorded the orchestral music twice (left-hand concerto three times), did the operas with the BBC and in Cleveland and Daphnis and Tombeau were virtually party pieces. Dmass (talk) 07:03, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
        • True (I recall an LSO concert at which he gave us a complete Daphnis of amazing clarity of texture) but any statement in the lead should be backed up in more detail in the main text, and though Debussy, Stravinsky and Bartók and the Second Viennese School are very well covered, there is nothing about Ravel in the main text until we get to this single mention in the Recordings section. Tim riley talk 15:20, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
          • I see what you mean and will attend to it. He conducted Daphnis at the first concert of his I went to (BBCSO in 1976 with the Quichotte songs, the Debussy Villon ballades and his own Rituel). If only I still had my old cassette of the broadcast... Dmass (talk) 21:36, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
          • New paragraph added in the New York and London section Dmass (talk) 11:23, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
    • The fifth paragraph runs out of citations towards the end.
      • The Mahler cycle is now referenced. I'm struggling to find a source which explicitly states that Klagende Lied was his last recording. There were no recordings after it, but it's difficult to prove a negative... Dmass (talk) 15:46, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
    • More focussing in the last para.
  • Performing
  • Writing and teaching
  • Legacy
    • I was very surprised to find no information about current and recent performances of Boulez's works around the world. Memorial halls are splendid but the most important part of a composer's legacy is his (or her) place in the international repertory. It should be possible to find out how many performances of pieces x, y and z there have been in recent years in Paris, London, New York or elsewhere. Comprehensiveness is not a requirement for GA, and so this isn't a problem at this review, but if, as I hope, you have FAC in mind, it will have to be looked at carefully before then.
  • Sources and references
    • I don't think I have ever seen another article where the list of sources came before the citations. No reason to object to having them this way round, but it struck me as strange.
    • The inclusion of multiple editions in the list of sources is rather confusing. I advise you just to list the actual book you got the information from, and omit mention of other editions, paperbacks etc.
      • That's a tricky one because not all the sources were added by me. What I propose is: if I added it, I will just refer to that (which will likely be the UK edition). If I didn't, I will just refer to the US edition, so that there is a mix (and also because I know at least one of the other major contributors, who is very good with sources etc. and may well have added them, is US-based). I will leave this suggestion for a day or so, in case you think that's the wrong approach. Dmass (talk) 16:09, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
        • So that you'd drop one or other of hardback/softback Conversations with Célestin Deliège and Orientations and either the English or American versions of Boulez on Music Today etc? Good plan, I'd say. This will satisfy the policy WP:SAYWHERE but unclutter the list. Incidentally the ISBNs could do with a polish: for some occult reason ISBNs exist in 13- and 10-digit versions, and if both are available for any book - and they usually are - we are asked to use the 13-digit version. And to use the hyphenated form when available (which, again, is usually so). But be of good comfort, I am now quite used to feeding the numbers through the ISBN sausage machine, and will undertake that minor chore once you have eliminated the duplicate editions, on the basis you suggest above. Tim riley talk 12:55, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
    • You have a hyphen where an en-dash is wanted in the page range of the Glock symposium (both mentions, and I did just wonder how both the Bennett and the Bradshaw chapters of the book have the same page numbers.) Ditto for ref 63 (Steinegger).
      • A kind fellow-editor seems to have fixed all the hyphen/en-dash issues. Re the page refs in Glock, well spotted! Bradshaw was wrong. Dmass (talk) 11:14, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
    • There is also a hyphen rather than an en-dash in the date range of the Boulez and Schaeffner book.
    • Likewise for Stephen Walsh's book.
    • Mostly you say online sources were "retrieved", but I spotted three "accessed"s. Best be consistent.
    • I was puzzled by your method of referring to Grove online. The Boulez article is listed under sources, with just "Hopkins and Griffiths" in the references. This would be fine if it were consistent with the way you've dealt with the Beethoven article in note 41, where the bibliographic info is in the note, with no separate listing in the sources. And if you must include the editor's name (though I have rarely seen it done, and it doesn't feature in Grove's own recommended citation styles) you need to decide if he's Deane L. Root (Beethoven) or just Deane Root (Boulez). If the former, he should be "Root, Deane L." and not "L. Root, Deane" as at present.
    • You are inconsistent about indicating which sources are in French. I recommend you mention the language for all French-language sources.
    • I'm not sure of your rationale for giving the titles of newspapers in the citations. In particular the inclusion or omission of definite articles seems haphazard:
    • Publishers - inconsistently labelled:

That concludes my comments. Quite a lot of them, but there is nothing very grave there, other than the lack of information about modern performances in the legacy section, and once you've had a chance to deal with them we can press on. I have not forgotten that you're away till the weekend, and there is no great hurry for you to respond to the above. We can deal next week once you're back in the swing. I shan't bother putting the review on formal hold, unless you wish it. Over to you. Tim riley talk 15:53, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you so much, Tim, for such a thorough and painstaking review. It all looks extremely helpful. As you say, I'm away this week - but I'll continue to chip away at some of the simpler corrections. More substantive changes will be picked up when I'm back at my desktop with access to books. Thanks again for all your help.Dmass (talk) 18:59, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
Dare I say it, I think I've finished (this stage). Let me know if I've missed anything. Thank you again for keeping an eye out along the way - and for jollying me along! Your time and attention to detail are both hugely appreciated. Dmass (talk) 16:55, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Overall summary

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    Well referenced.
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    Well referenced.
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    Well illustrated.
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
    Well illustrated.
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

Looking to the future, I feel I should point out as earnestly as I can that although there is no digression, no wildly irrelevant material, the article is very, very long. This doesn't affect its eligibility for GA, but I can name (though I shan't) at least two editors who will object vigorously to the length if you go to FAC, and I'm afraid I'd be inclined to join them. I was incorrect in saying, above, that this is more than twice the median word-count of the existing FAs on composers – it isn't quite. The median is 7,080 and this article weighs in at 13,506. That is 1,035 words longer than the longest composer FA (Tchaikovsky), which, other than Britten (10,700), is the only one to top 10,000. If Mahler can manage with 8,975 words, Wagner with 8,359, Shostakovich with 6,789 and Messiaen with 4,778, it should be possible to cover Boulez thoroughly in a good many fewer words than 13,506. An article as good as this should be taken all the way to FA, which I think it absolutely must be – once it has had a good trim. But enough of carping. This is a top notch article, and it has been a privilege to play a part in its development. Bravi to the nominator and the other main editors. Tim riley talk 17:04, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Sounds a bit harsh Tim. But I think I know what you mean. So I'll give you Three Bollywood Cheers. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:22, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Pruning to come

Thank you again for your invaluable help and for your kind words. I take on board your observations about length. I'll spend a bit of time looking at other FA composer articles for guidance/inspiration and will gradually start to prune away some of the detail. Working through this GA process has already given me a few ideas. When I've taken it as far as I can without help, I'll come back to you and discuss a possible peer review (with my tin hat on unless I've managed some pretty serious cuts, by the sound of it...). Best wishes Dmass (talk) 17:15, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

"....by the end of the final [Ring] cycle in 1980 they received a 90-minute ovation"

Really? I only ask. Very thorough, the Germans! Johnbod (talk) 02:53, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Apparently. Cited in several different sources... Dmass (talk) 05:25, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:53, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Proposing to cut Further Reading

Two editors have queried the need for the Further Reading section at Peer Review and I think their concerns are well-founded. However, I will leave it for a couple of days in case anyone else would like to make further observations. Dmass (talk) 07:50, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Further reading revisited

The Further reading section again requires scrutiny. The MoS specifies "An optional bulleted list, usually alphabetized, of a reasonable number of publications that would help interested readers learn more about the article subject". The present list is a random collection of American press cuttings. I have ploughed my way through all six articles and they add nothing of value to the information in the citations and sources, and don't, in my view, "help interested readers learn more about the article subject". This is already one of the longest WP articles on a classical musician, and I think it would be advantageous to clear the clutter of press cuttings away entirely. – Tim riley talk 12:35, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

I agree. I recall a number of editors at Peer Review (including you, I think, Tim) commenting on the length of article, so I'm looking for anything to save space before considering submitting it for FAC. There's already a fairly extensive list of sources, which should provide signposts for those who are interested in digging deeper. Unless anyone strongly objects, I propose to delete it Dmass (talk) 18:21, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
Quite so. Moreover, I have just now taken the liberty of pruning some further well-meant recent additions, all cited but peripheral, unneeded and unhelpful to the grand scheme of getting the article down to a suitable word count for FAC. Tim riley talk 18:48, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
No objections over the six days this thread has been open, so have deleted the section. Onwards and upwards! Tim riley talk 00:47, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

CBE

The principal author of the article recently removed "CBE" from the opening sentence, but another editor has put it back again. I think it would be in accordance with MOS:POSTNOM to delete it once again. It was an honorary award, and Boulez was not a British citizen. We don't refer in our leads to "Ronald Reagan, GBE", or "François Hollande, GCB", or "Riccardo Muti, KBE", and I don't think we should mention Boulez's honorary British gong in his lead. It should, of course, be mentioned in the main text, and indeed it is. Tim riley;; talk 12:54, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

I guess you're right. I removed the CBE on the other hand why did you shorten the article? MarcelDuprè1886 (talk) 19:38, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
See above section and my article edit summary. We are trying to trim the article to normal length for a Featured Article, in preparation for submitting it to WP:FAC. Any suggestions for further trimming could be made here. Tim riley talk 20:19, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
I see now. Is it possible to at least retain some of the info as footnotes or keep the photo of Boulez's grave? MarcelDuprè1886 (talk) 17:02, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
Footnoting peripheral but nonetheless interesting information to get it out of the main text is often an excellent idea − and gets the official word count down − and perhaps the principal author of the article, our colleague Dmass, will take that thought into account while preparing and trimming the article for FAC. As to the picture of the grave, my general practice is to include such a thing if we are short of pictures in an article, but if we aren't I incline not to include one, as in truth it doesn't on the whole tell the reader much about the person. But as to that I defer to Dmass. Tim riley talk 17:24, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
Many thanks, both. There is, of course, a huge amount of information which could go in; the question is whether it's proportionate in an article aimed at a general reader. I have a rule for myself which is that, if I add anything, something else has to go. I cut a lot of (to me, at least) quite interesting detail after the article went through peer review a couple of years ago because it just couldn't be justified. I'm now eyeing further cuts to one or two sections, as well as a fresh approach to the awards and decorations sections, which has grown unchecked over the years.
Turning to the recent amendments, I've added back the detail about the change to Boulez's family name, but as a footnote. I can't immediately find a source for that. Could you please add one, when you have a moment? However, I've left out the middle names and details of birth and death locations for other family members. I've also added back the photographer credits, as concisely as possible. I've attempted to add back the photograph of Boulez's grave, but I'm not good with photos and it came out very large. Could someone else have a go?.
By the way, I think the photograph of Boulez in Cleveland is unlikely to be from 1961 (he didn't conduct there until 1965). More likely to be late 60s, judging by his hairline...
I hope this is agreeable. Dmass (talk) 10:46, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
Sure, but how do I add a reference to a note?
MarcelDupré1886 (talk) 20:47, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
Have a look at the format of note 2. That has a reference attached to it. Dmass (talk) 20:59, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

"Revert to version using good English"

Tim riley reverted my version, which among other things trimmed the article wordcount and fixed some grammar. I also added a reference to the family's original surname.

Perhaps you could explain TIm, in further detail, why?

MarcelDupré1886 (talk) 09:58, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Your changes used mangled English such as "heavily regarded" and "later in life he describing himself". Though your alterations are clearly well-intentioned, it is better not to change good English into bad. I see no evidence that you "fixed some grammar", assuming you are not using "fix" in the sense (OED 14c) "to kill". Tim riley talk 10:23, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
I did not notice the he in "later in life he describing himself" and I'm sorry for that. I hope you could at least re-add the reference regarding his surname, if not I'll just do it myself later (appr. 3 hours or so).
MarcelDupré1886 (talk) 10:30, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
Let us see if there is a consensus for your proposed addition or other changes. The principal author of the article, Dmass, may have views, as may other interested editors. You may like to note, apropos of rewriting the existing prose, that at peer review an editor with numerous FAs to his credit commented, "I have to say Dmass, that you write beautifully. I don't think I've seen such a well-polished article from a relative newbie in an awfully long time. It's clear, complete, no wasted language or nonsense, just very nicely done. It really is a pleasure to read." I concur, and counsel against making well-meant alterations to the prose without first gaining consensus here. Tim riley talk 11:00, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
I'm afraid I was going to query the reference re the surname, which looks like a privately-generated genealogical record, which I don't think is normally regarded as an acceptable source on Wikipedia. I'm not saying you're wrong about the surname, but I think we'll need a more authoritative source. I was going to have a look through the various biographies later on to see if I can find one. If you can track it down, that's great. It does ring a bell... Dmass (talk) 11:03, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
I've just checked Peyser (1976), Jameux and Merlin, all of whom start with PB's parents, mention the grandfather only briefly, but say nothing about the change to the surname, which is a shame. I'll keep an eye out though, in case it's hidden away somewhere else. Dmass (talk) 11:22, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Awards, decorations and Grammys

As mentioned above, I think the Awards and Decorations section needs re-thinking. It seems to list every single award Boulez received, which in itself I think is disproportionate: the article doesn't list all his compositions, or all his recordings or opera productions, all of which are arguably more significant. I propose to replace it with a single, narrative paragraph, focusing on the honours which Boulez himself listed in his Who's Who entry. I'm also proposing to remove the paragraph in the section 1959-1971 on the Grammy awards Boulez received for his recordings with the Cleveland orchestra. An earlier entry on Grammy awards was removed at peer review; another editor added this one in subsequently. My own view is that a Grammy is not as significant in classical music as it is in other genres; and focusing only on the ones he got with Cleveland reads like a bit of a puff for the orchestra, especially when there are a number of references to his work with the orchestra elsewhere. I'm also proposing to cut the penultimate paragraph in the Recording section, which I added and which I now think reads a bit like a puff for DG. I'll leave this for a couple of days, in case anyone has any observations.Dmass (talk) 14:03, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

I strongly agree with all the above. It would, I'm certain, be advantageous to prune the section to focus on just the major awards. I have looked at PB's entry in Who's Who, and I see he chose to list far fewer awards than we mention in our present article. We should, in my view, follow his example and mention the important awards and omit the also-rans. That was the method we used for the FAs on Britten (145 words on the topic), RVW (132 words) etc. Tim riley talk 13:48, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
Agreed as well. I would suggest that at least the awards without Wikipedia pages be removed, and preferably others as well to make the amount akin to the Who's Who suggestions above. Aza24 (talk) 23:33, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
I've made a first stab at this, using the Britten article as a template (as for so many things...). Let me know what you think. Dmass (talk) 16:44, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
Looks spot-on to me. All the important awards and honours concisely set out, with a fireproof rationale for their selection. Tim riley talk 21:36, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pierre_Boulez/Archive_2&oldid=1171425527"