Talk:Ralph Vaughan Williams/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Family tree

The family tree was done in PowerPoint and I am a bit resistant now to spending more time on it. If you email me I will email back the PowerPoint.Cutler 20:40, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Religious beliefs

Most sources write that RVW was an agnostic, although I gather his 2nd wife claims he was an 'atheist who drifted into a cheerful agnosticism.' Certainly he was not a 'militant' atheist. Anyone got a good source here - in view of RVWs ouput it's important to clear up the point I think. Linuxlad 11:58, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Bertrand Russell in his Autobiography says that as Cambridge RVW was a militant atheist who loudly announced that only fools believed in God.Roger Allen 17:58, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

So he may have been militant at Cambridge and then mellowed later, which would be fairly typical. That's the trouble with saying someone was something or other: One can have been lots of contradictory things. TheScotch (talk) 09:02, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I was wondering when he composed his religious works/as a militant atheist or a mellowed agnostic? I was also wondering what the religious beliefs of his second wife Ursala were. If anyone could help, thanks. 165.123.134.129 (talk) 15:55, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

The only "religious" Vaughan Williams piece I can think of off-hand is Pilgrim's Progress, to which I think Ursula was implicitly alluding. Vaughan Williams does quote the Bible in his seventh symphony score, a late work, if that counts. I don't think Ursula's own beliefs would be germane to this article. TheScotch (talk) 09:00, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I would say his Mass In Gm is quite religious.

Well, now the article says this: "Despite his substantial involvement in church music, and the religious subject-matter of many of his works, he was described by his second wife as 'an atheist … [who] later drifted into a cheerful agnosticism.'" True or not, it has no citation. I realize that identifying as an atheist or agnostic every historical figure possible is now so firmly one of Wikipedia's raisons d'être as to be beyond reproach, but assertions like this should have citations - if only for appearances' sake. Someone can go through and remove them in three years, when the world's Internet geeks succeed in eradicating all organized religion. Yes, you detect sarcasm.

It's quoted verbatim in the most current New Grove. I supplied a cite. If you have access, it's in section 1, "Early Life and Beliefs." While it may do little to assist in any religion-eradication campaign, it should improve the article. Thanks, Antandrus (talk) 22:15, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Music for Orchestra

Does this section listing need a slight re-organization? Why is the Fantasia on a Theme of Thomas Tallis of 1910 listed between the Symphony No.3 of 1921 and the Symphony No.4 of 1931-1943? I don't recall, but if it was reworked by RVW in the years between 1921 and 1931, shouldn't its listing then have two dates, or a date range? Otherwise shouldn't it be moved back in the chronological listing to appear between The Wasps of 1909 and Symphony No.2 of 1913?JackME 21:18, 27 April 2006 (UTC) RVW never numbered the Sea, London, Pastoral or Antartica symphonies. I think it was only at Number 8, to avoid confusion with Number 5, that he gave any of them a number.Roger Allen 18:01, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Compositions Missing

I have noticed several compositions missing from the list - notably Norfolk Rhapsody No.1 , Prelude and Fugue In C Minor , The Voice Out of The Whirlwind and Willow-Wood. Is there any reason for this? Also can anyone provide any further information on them so they can be listed? \

--Leowatkins 21:26, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

There are many of RVW's compositions missing. Initially I interpreted this incompleteness and this Wiki entry on RVW to be only a brief overview, but maybe it should be fuller and more complete, and if so then a complete listing of RVW's works would be appropriate. Kennedy's book, the RVW society, some excellent "fan" websites, all could be sources to gather this information to this article. I notice "HODIE" and "THE FIRST NOWELL" are missing to name another two. JackME 13:22, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Pronounciation of Ralph

I once heard that pronouncing his name "rafe" is actually a North American affectation and is not the way Brits (including his wife) have historically pronounced his name. Anybody else know anything about this? 4.229.36.169 00:49, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid that's not true. I heard his wife refer to him as Rafe; she also confirmed that he eventually got tired of correcting people about that and just insisted on the correct spelling of his name (i.e. Vaughan with 2 A-s), but he definitely pronounced his first name as Rafe. --Wspencer11 (talk to me...) 12:24, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Ursula Vaughan Williams, in her biography of Vaughan Williams from 1964 ("R.V.W.") states that his name was pronounced "Rafe", and "any other pronunciation used to infuriate him." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.7.39.33 (talk) 04:29, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

So is it an English affectation then ? Or just the Williams ? Should any English person with the name Ralph be pronounced "Rafe" ?? Eregli bob (talk) 09:36, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Well the bloke I know who's Ralph pronouced Rafe is Irish... David Underdown (talk) 16:08, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Not an affectation but the effect of spelling on pronunciation: in Elizabethan times the name was spelt Rafe or Ralph indiscriminately. Some people later pronounced it as it is spelt, others did not.Roger Allen (talk) 22:03, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it an affectation either, but a pronunciation variant. The word Ralph came from Raphael, so that's where the Rafe comes from. The spelling morphed into Ralph, to the point where Raphael and Ralph are now considered distinct names. Nevertheless, the old pronunciation Rafe persists among some users of the name Ralph. There are lots of similar examples: some people named Mainwaring call themselves Mannering, but these days the literal pronunciation Main-waring is common too. I'd only call it an affectation where a person who's always pronounced his name as Ralph suddenly decides to become a Rafe. That was never the case with RVW. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:23, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Ralph doesn't come from Raphael which is I believe Hebrew in origin, Rafe/Raphael comes from Old English/Germanic names Raedwulf/Radulf meaning 'Wolf Counsel'.

I doubt very much this particular pronunciation was a personal affectation, I'm inclined to view it as something of a class marker, it being a pronunciation I associate with Upper Middle Class sorts, whether this has always been the case is another matter, it may well have begun as a regional variant which later acquired this elevated social association. 92.13.200.58 (talk) 15:26, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't dispute the fact that RVW (and some others with the name) preferred this particular pronunciation of Ralph, but it's hardly an important feature of the man or his music. It certainly does not deserve such prominence that it appears in the first few words of the article (also in a way that would puzzle anyone but the very few who are familiar with the phonetic alphabet). At most it might merit a tiny, inconspicuous footnote. John Hamilton (talk) 13:33, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

The late Richard Gladwell, a radio host and musicologist grew up in England, used to sit in front of the Vaughan Williamses at concerts and was given chocolates by them. He said that the pronunciation 'Rafe' is Welch. Ralph was not Welch, but his wife used to call him Rafe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Normteck (talk • contribs) 13:05, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

What a relief. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:37, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I sang in a catherdral choir for three years in the late 1950s directed by Alec Wyton who was previously a student of RVW. Englishman Wyton, who named his first son Vaughan in honor of RVW, always pronounced the first name "Ralph" as it's spelling would suggest. I never knew there was a controversy until the 1970s.184.4.110.46 (talk) 19:09, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

But let's not forget this Rafe. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:18, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by not foretting Rafe. ... That there is a controversy? That apparently some who knew him well called him Ralph and others Rafe?

Latest revision

Yes, he was a conductor and organist (of sorts), BUT...I don't think it's reasonable to call him "influential" in either category. As I understand it his conducting style was rather unorthodox and not terribly efficient but he certainly could get his wishes across. (Fred Gaisberg at EMI thought his conducting was so poor that EMI would only record the 4th Symphony with the composer on the podium--given the quality of that performance this is obviously a very short-sighted view.) As for his skills on the organ bench, when he toured the US in the 1950s he was asked to play the organ at a church service and responded that he hadn't played the organ in fifty years. I believe he played as a young man as a way to be part of the musical life of the period, but he was never trained as an organist.

So I would revert this and will do so unless other compelling views come out here. --Wspencer11 (talk to me...) 12:52, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I would agree with you Wspencer11. RVW is surely noted as a composer. Any other abilities he had such as conducting and organ playing are incidental and only serve to dilute the emphasis: RVW is a noted composer. JackME 01:55, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Re: "I believe he played as a young man as a way to be part of the musical life of the period, but he was never trained as an organist.":

Of course he "trained" as an organist. Don't "believe"; check a biography. TheScotch (talk) 10:45, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

For/After

FOR: a. As regards; concerning: a stickler for neatness. b. Considering the nature or usual character of: was spry for his advanced age. c. In honor of: named for her grandmother.

AFTER: With the same or close to the same name as; in honor or commemoration of: named after her mother.

(emphasis added)JackME 12:12, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Picture?

Any chance of finding a suitable photo or other picture of him? --Wspencer11 (talk to me...) 17:11, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I have found one in the commons and have added it; I hope also to have a more typical portrait type photo to add before long. --Wspencer11 (talk to me...) 19:55, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I like the one of him with his cat; I wonder if it's copyrighted. Adso de Fimnu 01:37, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

British Isles

I don't want to get into nationalist arguments here (I'll leave that to the actual British Isles page), but this sentence makes no sense to me:

"Simultaneously the music is patriotic of the British Isles"

You can't be patriotic of a purely geographical entity that comprises two separate modern nations (UK and Republic of Ireland). It would be somewhat like being patriotic of North America, or patriotic of the Iberian peninsula. What was the author trying to say here?

I'm pretty sure Vaughan Williams' patriotism was for England, exclusively. Hence pieces such as the "English Folk Song Suite" and "Norfolk Rhapsody No.1". I think it would be potentially confusing to call his style 'patriotic' without stating what that patriotism was for. Surely you agree? --Leowatkins 23:46, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Leo. Yes, I agree. I'm not familiar with all his work, but all the folk-music arrangements and variations of his that I've heard have been English. On the other hand, an earlier part of the article says: "In essence, however, this is characteristically English (and British) music". Nonetheless, no examples other than English folk music are provided in the article, and the emphasis is firmly on the English character of his work.

I also prefer your construction "patriotic for" rather than the original "patriotic of"

So I'll change the sentence to:

"Simultaneously the music is patriotic for England ..."213.131.238.25Dermot

Yes i quite agree, that's probably the best way to express it. --Leowatkins 12:47, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

It would be helpful in cases like this to point out precisely where in the article the disputed passage resides. Right now it's in the last sentence of the "Style" section. Certainly of is the wrong preposition, but I don't think for is quite right either. I've replaced for with toward. Note please, however, that the entire section is pretty much all POV. It needs to be revised radically. TheScotch (talk) 08:49, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Symphony numbers

RVW himself gave his early symphonies either titles ( A Pastoral Symphony etc) or Key signatures (Symphony in E Minor). It was only with the Symphony No. 9- which shared the key of E minor with what then became the Symphony No. 6- that he numbered any symphony. I don't think he ever authorised giving numbers to the Sea, London or Pastoral Symphonies or the Sinfonia Antartica. I'll check up, but I've been ill, so no guarantee of speed in doing so.

No, the numbering started with the his fifth symphony, which like his Pastoral Symphony (his third symphony) is in D major. His publisher insisted on numbers from that point, and Vaughan Williams was obliging, however reluctantly. TheScotch 11:15, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I beg to differ, emphatically. First, the Pastoral is not in D Major. Never has been, never will be. Second, the numbers did not appear until the Ninth, which is in the same key as the Sixth; the (unsigned) person who added the first comment on this topic is correct. --Wspencer11 (talk to me...) 21:59, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Michael Steinberg, The Symphony, 1995, Oxford University Press, page 654 (paperback edition): "The Eighth was the first symphony that Vaughn Williams numbered himself. His first three symphonies went by their names. The next three he called simply Symphony in F minor, Symphony in D major, and Symphony in E minor, but beginning with the D major his publisher intervened and added numbers to the titles [my emphasis]." TheScotch (talk) 04:13, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Here is what the RVW Society have listed on their page:(and they associated with Ursula Wood Vaughan Williams would presumably have a valid opinion)

FOR DISCUSSION REFERENCE ONLY

List of works - Symphonies

1910 A Sea Symphony For soprano, baritone, mixed chorus, and orchestra. Words by Walt Whitman.

Dedication: To R.L.W. [(Sir) Ralph Wedgwood]. Four movements; A Song for All Seas, All Ships; On the Beach at Night, Alone; Scherzo (The Waves) Allegro brillante; The Explorers: Grave e molto adagio.

1913 'A London Symphony' For orchestra.

Dedication: To the memory of George Butterworth. Four movements: Lento-allegro risoluto; Lento; Scherzo (Nocturne) Allegro vivace; Finale: Andante con moto – maestoso alla marcia (quasi lento) – allegro – maestoso alla marcia – Epilogue: Andante sostenuto.

1921 Pastoral Symphony Symphony No 3 For full orchestra, with soprano (or tenor) voice.

Four movements: Molto moderato; Lento moderato; Moderato pesante; Lento.

1931-4 Symphony No.4 in F minor For full orchestra.

Dedication: To Arnold Bax. Four movements: Allegro; Andante moderato; Scherzo: Allegro molto; Finale con Epilogo fugato: Allegro molto.

1938-43 Symphony No.5 in D major For full orchestra.

Dedication: To Jean Sibelius, without permission. Four movements: Preludio: Moderato; Scherzo: Presto; Romanza: Lento; Passacaglia: Moderato.

1946-7 Symphony No.6 in E minor For full orchestra.

Dedication: To Michael Mullinar. Four movements: Allegro; Moderato; Scherzo: Allegro vivace; Epilogue: Moderato.

1949-52 Sinfonia Antartica For full orchestra, soprano soloist, and women's chorus.

Dedication: To Ernest Irving. Five movements; Prelude: Andante maestoso; Scherzo: Moderato – poco animando; Landscape: Lento; Intermezzo: Andante sostenuto; Epilogue: Alla marcia moderato (ma non troppo).

1953-5 Symphony No.8 in D minor For full orchestra.

Dedication: To John Barbirolli. Four movements; Fantasia (Variazioni senza Tema): Moderato – presto – andante sostenuto – allegretto – andante non troppo – allegro vivace – andante sostenuto – Tempo I ma tranquillo; Scherzo alla marcia (per stromenti a fiato): Allegro alla marcia – andante – Tempo I (allegro); Cavatina (per stromenti ad arco): Lento espressivo; Toccata: Moderato maestoso.

1956-7 Symphony No.9 in E minor For full orchestra.

Dedication: To the Royal Philharmonic Society. Four movements: Moderato maestoso – tranquillo – poco animato – andante sostenuto – poco meno mosso – ancora poco animando – poco animato ma pesante – largamente.

ABOVE COPIED/QUOTED FOR DISCUSSION REFERENCE ONLY

I would suggest this as a standardization of referencing RVW's symphonies here at this WIKI article (except I don't understand why 'Pastoral Symphony Symphony No 3' is referenced in that way! Nor why 'A Sea Symphony' is not quoted, but 'A London Symphony' is!)

JackME (talk) 23:50, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: "and they associated with Ursula Wood Vaughan Williams would presumably have a valid opinion:

As I see it, there are three questions that need to be considered: Are the discrepancies here (some of which you note) deliberate? Does "valid" mean these titles represent the wishes of Vaughan Williams himself? Should the wishes of Vaughan Williams himself take precedence over the wishes of his publisher (who made the works known to the world at large)? I don't think it's a bad thing for wikipedia to put numbers in parentheses for those symphonies whose numbers are deemed not part of their titles. (Oddly enough, I just received in the mail yesterday study score versions of Vaughan Williams's fifth and sixth symphonies. I didn't inspect the title pages closely, though.) TheScotch (talk) 06:23, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Compare this with the symphonies of Schubert or Dvorak. Dvorak's were published in a very different order than the numbering we use today (something like 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 3, 4, 1, 2); the New World (the 9th) was originally published as the "5th Symphony", so does that mean we're duty bound to refer to it as the 5th symphony in order to respect the composer's wishes? He'd virtually abandoned nos 1-4, and considered what we call the 5th symphony to be his first proper symphony, so he called it "No. 1". The comparisons with RVW should not be overstated, because all his symphonies were at least published in the order in which they were written. But for an encyclopedia to slavishly follow the numbering systems used by publishers or the composers themselves would lead to confusion and absurdity in some cases. (Which reminds me: I must get around to changing the numbering of Mozart's piano concertos so that the early arrangements of the works of others are excluded and described as "arrangements", and the concertos for 2 and 3 pianos are separated out - leaving only 20 solo original concertos, not the 27 we usually talk about. And the famous 40th symphony in G minor was actually something like his 50th. Which just demonstrates that the numbering of musical works is far from an exact science and there are massive inconsistencies wherever you look). Also, Schubert's Unfinished symphony is called No. 8 in English reference works, but No. 7 in German ones. Who's "right"? Finally, Beethoven's Piano Concerto No. 2 was written before No. 1, but because it was published second we call it "No. 2" - so sometimes the principle used is the order of publication, and sometimes it's the order of composition. -- JackofOz (talk) 01:00, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

A small question

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Symphonies_by_Ralph_Vaughan_Williams

I don't have enough practice to know how to deal with things in categories - but the titles/numbers of 1-3 are not consistent - and should the second word in the seventh be upper case or not? Lethe 20:49, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Nature of V-W's association with Maurice Ravel

I've discovered a discrepancy between sources about this matter.

I've gone into chapter and verse about it over at Talk:Maurice Ravel#Nature of Ravel's association with Ralph Vaughan Williams, and I welcome contributions.

I suggest the discussion take place exclusively on Ravel's talk page, rather than fragmenting it. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:27, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Style

Re: "If that Englishness in music can be encapsulated in words at all, those words would probably be: ostensibly familiar and commonplace, yet deep and mystical as well as lyrical, melodic, melancholic, and nostalgic yet timeless.":

According to whom?

Re: "Ackroyd quotes Fuller Maitland, who noted that in Vaughan Williams's style 'one is never quite sure whether one is listening to something very old or very new.' ":

This sentence strikes me as rather abrupt. What Ackroyd is this? Peter Ackroyd? Where does he quote "Fuller Maitland"? Who is Fuller Maitland? TheScotch (talk) 09:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I thought I'd do a little nosing around to see whether I could scare up a citation for that Ravel quotation. Haven't succeeded yet, but I did find an article by Roger S. Gordon that contains the following:

To quote from Peter Ackroyd's book Albion: The Origins of the English Imagination "If that Englishness in music can be encapsulated in words at all, those words would probably be: ostensibly familiar and commonplace, yet deep and mystical as well as lyrical, melodic, melancholic, and nostalgic yet timeless. Ackroyd also quotes from Fuller Maitland, who said that in Vaughan Williams's style "one is never quite sure whether one is listening to something very old or very new." ([1] Positive Feedback Online Issue 29; the publication is an audio hobbyist's periodical well respected in audiophile circles, and the quotation appears in a review of RVW's film music on Chandos.)

So I guess we have an answer to which Ackroyd and where he quotes Fuller Maitland. As to who Fuller Maitland is, or was, the little bit that I can see in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography without a subscription reads: "Maitland, John Alexander Fuller (1856–1936), music critic." An antiquarian book seller's site gives him as editor of Grove's Dictionary of Music and Musicians and Supplement, 1911-1913 and 1945, in 6 volumes. Otherwise, he appears to be the sort of gent who mainly shows up in those annoying Oxford Journal and Jstor links that uselessly clutter up the Google searches of mere mortals like me.

Of course, you're right that the entry is poorly done, and some of the foregoing should go into it for clarification; I'll give it a shot. It would appear that some discrete cribbing has gone on, but whether some WikiEditor has cribbed Positive Feedback or vice-versa I don't know. Apologies if I've just delivered an elephant (shamelessly mixing metaphors in the process) in response to an ironic rhetorical question. Drhoehl (talk) 02:32, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

No, I intended my questions to be taken at face-value, and I find your answers very helpful. Thanks. TheScotch (talk)

The section is much improved (I just checked it) after the changes you've made too. TheScotch (talk) 03:23, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I was pushed for time last night, but I just looked up the Wikipedia article on Grove's and found a bit more precise information about which edition Fuller Maitland edited; I've amended this article accordingly. Drhoehl (talk) 20:01, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:VaughanWilliams2.jpg

Image:VaughanWilliams2.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 07:17, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Composer project review

I've reviewed this article as part of the Composers project review of its B-class articles. This article is B-class, but could use some work; read my detailed review on the comments page. Questions or comments can be left here or on my talk page. Magic♪piano 21:24, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

a particular recording that was his wife's "favorite" of that piece according to a three years ago classical commentator

Unfortunately, I do not recall what piece it was. I heard it on the radio. It was utterly utterly mesmerizing performance. Afterwards, the commentator remarked that it was recorded after his death and that his wife said that she had never heard it played so beautifully. I have wondered ever since what particular piece and recording that was. It was really the most extroidinary performance. I hope someone may know and be able to say what it was. The wife's comment would have been one of a kind and therefore, perhaps, it is known by someone. It seems to me that it was an orchestral only piece. anyone who knows what this fantastic recording was, please tell me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.123.252.32 (talk) 15:29, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure if anybody knows what piece it is they will tell you, I don't personally know. Wikipedia isn't really the best way to ask questions like these; you may be better off trying a specialist music website or forum. YeshuaDavid • Talk • 19:32, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Or the reference desk. -RedCoat10 • talk 20:56, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

FYI it's the Fantasia on a Theme of Thomas Tallis, as recorded in about 1962 by Sir John Barbirolli and the "Strings of the Sinfonia of London" (probably a pickup group of some sort) for EMI. I think it was recorded at the Temple Church in London at about 1 in the morning; Bernard Herrmann was also at the sessions, which he had helped organize. --Wspencer11 (talk to me...) 18:11, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Surname

The issue about the composer's surname is an even more confusing one than the first name. It is not at all clear that the surname is Vaughan Williams because it lacks a hyphen. The reason why I first accessed this article was to find an answer to this issue. Instead I had to look up the article about double-barrelled surnames to get the answer. I put an explanation in the first paragraph hoping to resolve the confusion but some one else took it out. Removing this type of information hurts the article. I can't imagine how it could help the article by taking it out. Fans of the composer are already familiar with the name. However, there are many millions more who are unfamiliar with unhyphenated surnames such as this.

Also, I can't imagine why putting the pronunciations for the first name and first part of the surname together makes any sense. Each name that needs a pronunciation guide should have the guide next to the name. As it is now this only helps to confuse an already confused situation, making it look as if Vaughan is a middle name. The changes made to the name section should be changed back again. Thank you.--216.160.93.32 (talk) 03:27, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I moved the information to the footnote which also covers other aspects of his name. He is referred to throughout the article as Vaughan Williams, following the usual convention that we refer to the subject of the article by his surname - to me this makes it perfectly clear what the surname is - it's certainly not something that needs mentioning in the lead of the article. How the pronunciation is represented is governed by WP:MOSIPA which as I read it suggests that all pronunciation information should be together - I agree that we really ought to have a rendering for thee Williams part of the name too, I'll attempt one in a minute, but it's not something I've tried before, so I don't know how accurate it will be. Frankly, putting pronunciation info after individual parts of the name breaks the name up horribly, making it virtually unreadable. David Underdown (talk) 09:16, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

On second thoughts, I've moved the surname info to early life. David Underdown (talk) 09:27, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I still don't think that referring to the composer as "Vaughan Williams" makes it clear that this is the surname because it fails to explain why the name is missing a hyphen. BTW, it is not unusual to see recordings of this composer listed under "Williams" because a lot of people are as confused about the name as I was. Thanks for trying to reach a compromise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.160.93.32 (talk) 06:48, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

It's not that it's missing a hyphen; there was none there to begin with. Maybe you mean that it fails to explain why it's written without a hyphen. It's far from uncommon for people to have double-barrelled unhyphenated surnames - Kristin Scott Thomas, David Lloyd George, and some others are listed @ Double-barrelled name#Written form. But I can see your point; I can remember a time long ago when I thought his surname was Williams and his given name was Vaughan - I'd never even heard of the Ralph at that stage. I am grateful to whoever it was who disabused me of that notion, and it behoves us to carry on the noble tradition of disabuse. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 07:51, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

The use of a hyphen is a standard practice. If we do not know why the composer insisted on deviating from this practice then perhaps this fact should be mentioned. The article for Sacha Baron Cohen clearly states at the top of the page that the surname is Baron Cohen. I still think that is a better alternative than burying this information in the second section of the article, but a compromise is better than nothing I suppose.

I found it interesting that the article on double barrelled names confirmed what I had always thought - that those who use such a name are often trying to maintain some sort of pretense of nobility. To many, such names sound pretentious. And those who insist on an UNHYPHENATED double barrelled name only sound more so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.160.93.32 (talk) 20:55, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Note that that article is almost entirely unreferenced. The lead is generally supposed to be a sumamry of the article as a whole - with certain exceptions (the pronunciation issue seems to be one), we shouldn't be mentioning anything in the lead that isn't mentioned elsewhere. David Underdown (talk) 21:27, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

This isn't the place to be discussing why people in general might choose to use a double-barrelled surname, with or without a hyphen. As for the normal practice of hyphenating the two (or more) parts of the surname, it's not that RVW "insisted on deviating from this pratice". He had exactly the same surname as his father, who presumably had exactly the same surname as his father ... etc. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 07:49, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Since Vaughan Williams has no middle name AND no hyphen in the surname it is natural to assume that Vaughan is a middle name. That is why I think it is of greater importance to clearly state this at the beginning of the article. Many people with unhyphenated surnames DO have a middle name which helps to clarify the situation at least somewhat. BTW, Vaughan just happens to be a middle name that runs in my family! No, I am not kidding! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.160.93.32 (talk) 03:28, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I still maintain that the note about pronunciation of his name should not obscure the first lines of this article. It is, after all, of minor importance in an article about the man and his music. The most appropriate thing would be to transfer it to the section which comments on his surname. I am minded to do this... if nobody has a strong objection? John Hamilton (talk) 13:02, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

The Manual of Style specifically directs it should be in the lead. If the article is taken on to Featured Article, it will get moved back. David Underdown (talk) 13:54, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the argument that RVW merely inherited the name really holds up at all. The fact remains that He COULD have chosen to clarify the name by adding a hyphen, but did not. Others in the family did not have the issues with name recognition that RVW had because they were not celebrities. There are thousands of examples of celebrities who DO change their names for the sake of convenience and ease of recognition. --216.160.93.32 (talk) 21:46, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Which is neither here nor there. The fact is he didn't change his name (and why should he?), and this absolutely requires no explanation in an encyclopaedic article, any more than any needs to be furnished as to why he wore rumpled tweedy suits. Alfietucker (talk) 22:09, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Come to think of it, there's far more reason to discuss his wearing rumpled tweedy suits than why he didn't choose to change his name! Seriously, though, there's far more pressing things to deal with in this article (his musical influences, and the discrepancy between his public statements about his music and the actual quality and character of the music itself, for instance). Alfietucker (talk) 22:21, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like you may be beating a dead horse here. I will take the last question as a rhetorical one, since I already addressed the answer in my previous post. I did not suggest that information about why RVW should or should not change his name be added to the article, so that assumption is incorrect. As for the tweed suit thing, I think that is completely off topic.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.160.93.32 (talk) 22:28, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Erm, actually I rather thought I was pointing out you were flogging a dead horse, but perhaps the way I put it was too elliptical for you to grasp. Never mind. Alfietucker (talk) 22:46, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Or, perhaps you didn't realize that you were being led into this all along. Better to flog a pretentious name than a tweed suit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.212.64.252 (talk) 22:45, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

There's nothing "pretentious" about his name, what utter rubbish. MANY English people have double barreled names; lack of familiarity with this, or the fact that here in the USA a hyphen is more common, has no bearing on the 'rightness' of Vaughan Williams' name. I wonder what would have happened if some yokel from the backwaters of Sticksville, USA had run up to David Lloyd George and told him he spelled his own name incorrectly? HammerFilmFan (talk) 09:43, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Violin Concerto title

I believe that he withdrew the "Concerto Accademico" title at some fairly early point, and simply referred to it (and had it published) as the Violin Concerto in D minor. What's the best way to handle this situation? I'd lean toward noting the original title but only parenthetically, but will be interested to hear what others have to say. --Wspencer11 (talk to me...) 13:43, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I have a copy of The Master Musicians biography of Vaughn-Williams by James Day (1961). The text refers to the work as the Violin Concerto, but in the Appendix it describes it as the 'Concerto Accademico, D minor for violin & strings', like the D-Minor Violin concerto by Mendelssohn. Graham1973 (talk)

Cambridge Mass

• "Vaughan Williams choral work to premiere next year", BBC News, 12 October 2010
• "Ralph Vaughan Williams music manuscript discovered" by Tom Francies, The Daily Telegraph, 11 Oct 2010
• Excerpts from A Cambridg Mass at CambridgeUniversity's YouTube channel, 11 October 2010

Worth mentioning? I can see three aspects: as 1) a composition; 2) a demonstration of Cambridge's cataloguing system; 3) a question mark over the diligence of RVW's biographers. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:14, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Surname pronunciation

The first name is the major difference, I know, but I also remember reading once the that his last name was most properly pronounced "von while-yumz" instead of "will-yumz". Has anyone run across this anywhere?
Ulmanor (talk) 20:06, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

No, never. And it's not "von", either. Vaughan rhymes with "born", "corn", "horn", "lawn", "morn", "sawn", "torn" - and, yes, "porn". In BrEng these all exactly rhyme, but I appreciate some of them don't in other Englishes. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:15, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

In American English, "torn" and "lawn" have two different vowel sounds. Also, it is nearly impossible for most native speakers of American English not to pronounce the "r" in "corn", "torn", etc., so those example words don't help much. I assume, when you say, "And it's not "von", either", you mean that it's not pronounced "vahn", with the vowel sound in "don". For speakers of American English, the most helpful example word is "lawn" -- which is, as I mentioned above, a different vowel sound from "corn" and "torn" in American English.CorinneSD (talk) 03:20, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Better Picture?

Surely someone must be able to find a better picture, which fits the various Wiki requirements but also gives a better insight into his personality. The current sketch, while interesting, is far from the mental picture most of us have of RVW John Hamilton (talk) 10:45, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation

To scholars of medicine, Vaughan Williams is a classification of drugs used in the heart. I understand that scholars of music may not think this of any importance. A disambiguation line at the top of the article would allow scientists to be directed to the correct page without the need for further searching.

My revision (448893616) to this effect was reverted by Oldfaw. So I await adjudication on this matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.215.180.18 (talk) 00:27, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

You're right, there's no reason it should have been reverted. I restored it. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 02:09, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Folk Song Suite

It seems silly to add an arrangement as part of the Vaughan Williams's works, as it's not his. In general this isn't done on WP, not even for Mussorgsky outside of a case where the composer had input into it (like Debussy), or it was unfinished and completed by someone else. It's a very bas slippery slope -- if we add that, why not add the hundreds of other arrangements? (Incidentally I wonder why no one's done a split off works list here...) ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 14:21, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm also not crazy about the idea of including arrangements (by others) in a works list. Indeed, if the Mussorgsky list does not include Ravel's arrangement of Pictures -- one of the most famous arrangements of all time, heard way more often than the original -- I don't think we should include this particular arrangement in the works list. Am I missing something? Antandrus (talk) 15:10, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I understand the point you're both making. My thinking was (and I imagine it's similar to that by the editor who originally added the arrangement to the Orchestral list) that a lot of people are more familiar with the orchestral version and are unaware that it is not the original scoring, and would therefore look under Orchestral works first to find the work widely known as the English Folk Song Suite; that is why I reinstated it (also piqued, I must admit, by Melodia's claim that it was lesser-known than the original version), while also including a clear cross-reference so readers can be made aware of the original version. But no big deal - if one of you wants to remove it I'm not going to fuss about it. Alfietucker (talk) 15:22, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I for one wasn't even aware of the orchestral version until I bought a boxset of RVW's works. Looking, it does seem to be recorded in orchestral guise more than I expected, but the band version is still more so, it looks like. But looking at Debussy for instance, who has no less than three popular works at least as if not more well known in orchestrations (Children's Corner, Petite Suite, and Claire de Lune) by others, there's no mention in either the by genre or by Lesure number list of the orchestrations. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 16:13, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Though born into the privileged intellectual upper middle class, Vaughan Williams never took it for granted and worked all his life for the democratic and egalitarian ideals in which he believed.

He seems to have taken Charterhouse for granted though. Come on, he was a public school toff. It's easy to be nice and democratic and egalitarian when you're at the top of the pile.

Stuff like this is what gives WP a bad name

Following his father's death in 1875, he was taken by his mother, Margaret Susan (née Wedgwood) (1842-1937), the great-granddaughter of the potter Josiah Wedgwood, to live with her family at Leith Hill Place, a Wedgwood family home in the Surrey Hills. (The composer was therefore a great-great grandson of Josiah Wedgwood.)

The last, parenthetical statement is remarkably unnecessary.Colbyhawkins (talk) 14:52, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Then fix it? ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 16:05, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree that it is remarkably unnecessary. I'm going to delete it.CorinneSD (talk) 02:59, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Where has Ralph's Welsh family disappeared to?

Ralph Vaughan Williams was an English composer, but his father's side was Welsh, with his great-grandfather coming from Carmarthenshire. Has his Wikipedia entry ever said this? It is information that is publicly available on other biographies of the composer, as well as on other language versions of his Wikipedia biography. It should be included in his biography on this Wikipedia entry - something like "His father's side was of Welsh extraction. His great-grandfather was born in Carmarthenshire in 1757 before being educated at the University of Oxford." This is verifiable and in James Day's 1961 biography of RVW. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Larkascending101 (talk • contribs) 22:28, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Better perhaps to say British composer and it does mention his surname is of Welsh origin. Anyway on his maternal side his great grandmother, Elizabeth Allen later Wedgwood, was also Welsh from Pembrokeshire (Cresselly House was her family home). --Erp (talk) 03:51, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Two World Wars

At the end of the second (and long) paragraph, there is a date missing. It just says [year?]. I just wondered if perhaps someone knew, or could find out, the missing date and fill it in.CorinneSD (talk) 02:57, 1 September 2013 (UTC) After various revisions this section (about The Lark Ascending and subsequent works) now sounds rather clumsy and is in need of a bit more editing. John Hamilton (talk) 17:16, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Symphony no. 4

According to this article the Symphony no.4 was first performed in 1935. The Wiki article specifically on this symphony states that it was first performed (by the BBC Philharmonic) on 10 April 1934. I came across this discrepancy when doing some research. Which is correct? DrGeoffG (talk) 21:36, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I haven't checked the sources yet, but it is possible both are correct. Sometimes a distinction is made between a first broadcast performance and a first performance in front of an audience in a concert hall. Is it possible we are dealing with such a case here?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:47, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Ralph Vaughan Williams/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 Ralph Vaughan Williams: 2008-11-30== This is an assessment of article Ralph Vaughan Williams by a member of the Composers project, according to its assessment criteria. This review was done by Magicpiano. If an article is well-cited, the reviewer is assuming that the article reflects reasonably current scholarship, and deficiencies in the historical record that are documented in a particular area will be appropriately scored. If insufficient inline citations are present, the reviewer will assume that deficiencies in that area may be cured, and that area may be scored down. Adherence to overall Wikipedia standards (WP:MOS, WP:WIAGA, WP:WIAFA) are the reviewer's opinion, and are not a substitute for the Wikipedia's processes for awarding Good Article or Featured Article status. ===Origins/family background/studies=== Does the article reflect what is known about the composer's background and childhood? If s/he received musical training as a child, who from, is the experience and nature of the early teachers' influences described? Good ===Early career=== Does the article indicate when s/he started composing, discuss early style, success/failure? Are other pedagogic and personal influences from this time on his/her music discussed? Good compositionally, little (and poorly placed) personal or professional detail ===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 compositionally, little (and poorly placed) personal or professional detail ===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. Unclear if list given is complete, assuming it is. ===Critical appreciation=== Does the article discuss his/her style, reception by critics and the public (both during his/her life, and over time)? OK ===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.) Images OK; no sound clips. ===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; insufficient 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.) Lead is short for article of this length. Composition list should be separated. ===Things that may be necessary to pass a Good Article review=== Article requires more inline citations (WP:CITE) Article lead needs work (WP:LEAD) ===Summary=== This article appears to be fairly biographically complete, although some professional details are lacking, and the personal data is poorly presented. We do not know how he made his living; conducting? teaching? We do not know where he lived. We find out to whom he was married after we hear about Harriet Cohen; the personal biography should be integrated. The list of works may or may not be complete; it is hard to tell. It is also long enough that it should be separated to its own article. In the section on Recordings, it would be good to specifically call out currently-available recordings with RVW as conductor. Also, as RVW's music is still copyrighted, it would be useful to identify the publishers of his works. The article's lead is short for an article this long; 2-3 paragraphs. There are adequate references, but more inline citations would be needed for FA/GA consideration. This article is B-class, but it has room to improve. Magic♪piano 21:22, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Last edited at 21:22, 30 November 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 15:38, 1 May 2016 (UTC)