Talk:André Rieu/Archive 1

Archive 1

Pronunciation

Pronounced Ree-er? Haha, what? Who came up with that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.183.244.242 (talk) 06:28, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Guitar?

Some pages show he started play violin, not guitar at age of five. It loooks more probably. 148.122.35.132 01:36, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Netherlander

Should you really annoy Netherlanders by referring to them as "Dutch"? If it wasn't for the spell-checker here I'd be writing "Nederlander".

Would someone like to make a decision and fix as necessary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Linmhall (talk • contribs) 09:26, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

What on earth are you talking about? "Dutch" is not some sort of slur! It's the only generally accepted adjective form referring to people from the Netherlands. Anyway, this is best left for Talk:Dutch. --Saforrest (talk) 16:27, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

'The Rieu Noise'

"It is not yet known how Rieu tunes his violin, though scientists are on the case. This however does support the claims that Rieu is looking to create his own religious cult based around himself and the aural stranglehold he has on the elderly[6]. It cannot be confirmed nor denied that this will occur in conjunction with his own attempts at world domination."

I don't find any facts in the article nor the references that supports this. It seems like a rather outlandish claim which is more an opinion (of the writer?) than based on any fact. I'm not a fan of his music either, but please keep Wikipedia clean and factual. --Codegrinder (talk) 17:38, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

What it seems like is an attempt at WP:HUMOR. I've removed this bit of satirical goofiness. Cosmic Latte (talk) 22:20, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Criticism

The section "criticism" has been section blanked by anon on the 20th December. The material removed were balanced, considered critical remarks, and referenced. Seeing as this artist attracts considerable amounts of criticism from other sections of the critical apparatus and indeed, other musicians, it is essential for accuracy to present this aspect, and indeed, to expand on it. I'm going to undo this edit immediately. GermanicusCaesar (talk) 00:12, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

thanks - 220.245.253.81 (talk) 11:48, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Surely somebody likes him apart from himself. He has sold an awful lot of records. This section is pretty well all negative. Myrvin (talk) 18:18, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that sales have nothing to do with the subject of Criticism. See Music_criticism. The Eamon Kelly article (unfortunately no longer available publicly) specifically states that there is a dearth of serious musical critics writing about Rieu; that most reviews of his concerts are done by general journalists and they don't have any knowledge of, let alone training in, the necessary critical apparatus. That Perth Now article is a case in point. It is incorrectly referenced (i.e. not specifically) and when you find it via google, you can see that it doesn't even mention the music: it discusses the staging, the "authenticity" of the costume of people who drive coaches onto the stage, and about the sense of community. There is nothing about the quality of the playing, the sound, or any other musical quality of the concert, apart from which songs were played, and there's no content there which judges how well they were played. The quoted text is irrelevant to a critical approach to musical listening: how many people are given "joy" from a piece of music is not necessarily important to it's quality (and it makes no reference to the music's qualities as music). I'm therefore going to delete the quote because it's just not musical criticism. GermanicusCaesar (talk) 09:08, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Also you'll find that of the two critics quoted, there is a balance of both negative and positive remarks. So teh accusation of bias, is I think, unfounded. GermanicusCaesar (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:11, 14 August 2010 (UTC).

And now especially since I found the Eamon Kelly article using google (damn the Australian for arbitrarily changing its URLs), which engages in and addresses exactly the sorts of points that the Perth Now article clumsily tramps on with hobnail boots. GermanicusCaesar (talk) 09:24, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't see that a section headed 'Criticism' has to be only about music criticism. It is a much wider topic. The way his performances are received and are staged is important, as well as the sales of his records. Criticism of popular music tour or recordings would not necessarily only be about the music. You are being much too narrow. Nevertheless, you have improved it somewhat. Myrvin (talk) 11:04, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

that is true but I think if you stray out of the field of musical criticism then the whole thing becomes a morass of good-bad interchanges that don't lead to any real information. GermanicusCaesar (talk) 11:39, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Someone has removed all the criticism section except for a brief negative review - without a discussion. I am reverting to what it was. Myrvin (talk) 07:55, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

It doesnt need discussion, it is so obviously giving undue weight to his criticism. It forms a very large part of the article and focuses on the media of one country, that is silly. Go check undue weight and then we discuss again. ValenShephard (talk) 15:04, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Rather than coming in from nowhere, and destroying the work that several people have spent quite a lot of time producing, a better response may have been to add to other parts of the article. Or maybe find out more from other sources. Deleting large amounts of text just because you don’t like it smacks of a great deal of arrogance on your part. A little humility and a consideration for other contributers would be preferable. Myrvin (talk) 18:11, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

No arrogance intended. I have just been active in learning about undue weight and this seemed to fit perfectly. It doesn't matter how long people have worked on it if it shouldn't be in the article, or shouldn't be in the article in its current form. ValenShephard (talk) 18:16, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Nevertheless, your action was precipitous and unnecessary. You might have flagged your concern on the article, and put something in the discussion. Had you looked here, you would have seen that the section was a work in progress and had undergone several revisions only recently. It would be a good idea for you to read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Editing_policy#Be_cautious_with_major_changes:_discuss Myrvin (talk) 20:21, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Now I come to check, Tom Service (not in Australia) did not exactly say that Rieu is "vomit-inducing". He actually said that a particular performance of the St Matthew Passion (not by Rieu) was "still more vomit-inducingly repulsive than André Rieu." Not a good sign for AR I admit, but not quite what was written in the article. Myrvin (talk) 20:41, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

That makes me think that whoever contributed to the criticism section wanted to distort the sources most likely for a POV and wanting to damage Rieu. He is a fun, silly little violinist, does he really need a bigger criticism section than some controversial politicians? Undue weight all day long. ValenShephard (talk) 20:48, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

The criticism section is hugely out of proportion. It covers more than his personal life and his orchestra. Honest editors would realise this, whether they like him or not. It doesnt need quotes and such detail. We need to say he was criticised by who, and give a short summary. Thats more than enough. There are also many positive sources which somehow are not in the article. ValenShephard (talk) 20:52, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

This BBC 3 person, Kelly, is not a notable source. Why is he quoted 2-3 times? He doesn't even have an article on wikipedia and is not notable enough to be included. Even if he was, this is overexposure and undue weight given to one source. And again, too much here is from Australia, Australian orchestra, Australian media. It doesn't represent a world view, which is needed in wiki. This is ludicrous, to me it seems blindingly obvious, and the fact noone else here is currently supporting cutting this down makes me think there is a bias among some editors here. ValenShephard (talk) 20:54, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I think you are more pro than anti Rieu. You will see from the above that I complained that the section was biased against the man. In response, an attempt was made to produce more positive comments. Please try to find such comments and put them in. Oddly, you reduced the section to only negative reviews. Unfortunately, he is a very controversial musician. So criticism of him is an important part of his life and works. Again, if there is more to say about his life and suchlike, nobody should object to you adding to that. It is difficult to find citable criticism about him, and, for some reason, it is often from Australia. He has done several concerts there, and the papers have written about it. They are also Anglophones, whereas his write-ups in Germanic speaking countries would not be. Find better sources if you can. Myrvin (talk) 13:00, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

If its mostly from the Australian establishment and press, then we need to cut it down. The opinions coming out of that country cannot be given undue weight. And generally, a critism section should not take up so much room in he article. Maybe if the rest was expanded, we could have such a large section. My edits may have been bad, but it doesn't mean I am aiming for that again. It needs to be cut down, given due weight with the quotes from people who are not notable removed. ValenShephard (talk) 16:02, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I massively disagree with the editing that's been done here. Its coming from the Australian media because that's practically the only English-language media that seems to engage with Rieu critically *at all*. Additionally all of the sources were from respectable classical musical critics, not just journalists or general music writers. Further more, there were several other sources quoted which where non-Australian, such as Strings magazine; and the criticism of his *work* - which is after all the music *and* the stage show - is entirely relevant and also balanced between positive and negative. I am restoring the section as best I can. GermanicusCaesar (talk) 05:46, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

The argument of undue weight given above is absolutely specious. For a start, the criticism quoted in fact discusses the huge negative reaction that surrounds Rieu. Like it or not, this is an major aspect of this artist's reception in the classical music world, and it has to be addressed, i.e. acknowledged that it exists. He is a *controversial* topic, so the controversy is relevant. But furthermore, the criticism quoted then goes on to balance the good aspects and the bad aspects of both Rieu's playing *and* his staging, which is an important part of his artistic work. The section maintains at all times WP:NPOV. GermanicusCaesar (talk) 06:13, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Frankly you are talking rubbish. Unless you can prove that the views of the Australian media (some of it) is shared across the majority of medias, then we can use it as an example of the consensus on Rieu. Secondly, there is clear undue weight when a criticism section (which most experienced editors don't even think are that suitable for articles) has more material than alot of the rest of the article. Why do you think so much material is needed to convey to readers that some think he is rubbish? It's hard to assume good faith when you are just trying to defend criticism of an individual with no good policy reasons. ValenShephard (talk) 12:41, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

There are quotes from three articles. Only two are from the Australian press. The other is international; American I believe. They all agree with each other about the controversy (i.e. that it exists, and what its general shape is) around this artist. They all talk about the existence of such a controversy. Furthermore, there is a quote from an artist who is an *extremely* notable individual and artist, who plays the same instrument as this artist, who in an interview, attacks the artist directly using language in terms that make it entirely clear that the controversy exists (i.e. uses the language of a negative detractor). I don't think anyone needs to furnish further "proof" of its existence. More to the point the quotes don't "attack" the artist; they furnish proof that such a controversy exists, and they also furnish actual reputable musical criticism (and by criticism here I mean the technical term of Musical_criticism not "criticism" as in being negative). The criticism is both positive and negative. I'd also suggest you carefully read the WP:NPOV section about controversy, and the WP:NPOVFAQ. Discussing the controversy over this artist (and there is one as I've shown) is perfectly acceptable and there isn't an undue emphasis put on this - its contained in a single section.GermanicusCaesar (talk) 07:36, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Caesar: I suggest you glance at this guy's discussion page. He seems to cause chaos wherever he goes. For someone who talks about Wiki policy a lot, he has gone against it many times. Perhaps we should go for arbitration. I'll drop a note on User:SandyGeorgia's talk page. They have run into each other before. Myrvin (talk) 14:11, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

My talk page and my previous actions have nothing to do with what I have done here. I will consider this a personal attack, and canvassing SandyGeorgia because she has "run" into me is unacceptable. ValenShephard (talk) 14:38, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

This disuccsion of an individual editor doesn't belong here on article talk (Myrvin); please take it to ValenShephard's talk page. Also, see WP:DR; WP:ARBCOM is not the appropriate venue. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:47, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate your fairness here Sandy. It must be difficult to constantly assume good faith on my part when we have had so many conflicts. ValenShephard (talk) 14:49, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I did not find on the user's talk page that there was much of an issue particularly with the ValenShepard. A couple of people there thank him for his contributions, I'm sure we can work this out. GermanicusCaesar (talk) 07:45, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I am going to change the title of the section to "Reception" in-line with guidelines. GermanicusCaesar (talk) 07:42, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your good faith. Do you think it is still worth discussing the section? ValenShephard (talk) 21:29, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I think that the reception in critical circles over his 'validity' as a classical artist if you'll allow me to characterise it as that, is an important factor in Rieu's relationship with the wider classical canon. I'd certainly agree that we need to find find more or better sources which would allow the section to rely less on just three articles (two from a newspaper) and a radio interview. Maybe we can drop the Chris Boyd para and perhaps expand from the David Templeton article until further suitable material is found (I have a thesis to write!) ? The problem is finding balanced articles that don't simply adopt one position or the other, i.e gushing adoration "he's bringing classical music to people who don't listen to it! it's beautiful music! people who don't like him are snobs!"; or patrician dismissiveness "he doesn't play classical music, he can't play very well, its all about the staging not the music, its all so common!". Another factor is that this dismissive attitude means I think the serious music press just tends to ignore him. More articles need to be found that discuss the polarization, so far I unearthed only those three (BTW I think the bias to Australian sources is because his DVD sales actually do very well there, it makes him highly visible). GermanicusCaesar (talk) 21:57, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Nicely explained. I agree, we need better sources, more balanced ones, no doubt. Additionally, undue weight talks about not over representing one source or one conception of anything. That is why I think it is not good to overstate the Australian media's (only some of it even!) view of him. If we allowed a section to be made up what a couple of papers from one country think about an artist, or anyone, we would have a very distorted view of reality. Are the views of those sources the most commonly accepted views? Maybe not. I think it needs reliable sources, and a bit of a cutting. And I would rather have this as, like you said, a "reception" or "analysis" section, not just criticism. Which is the sign of a poor and cobbled together article (usually by editors with POVS against the subject without the time and effort to incorporate it properly into the body of the article).

Well, I don't think it matters that there's two Australian papers included; they were the ones that could be found which addressed the issue of the artist's reception. The fact they are Australian or from anywhere else for that matter doesn't matter one bit, it seems to me. Are they showing a distorted view of reality? I think such a claim would have to be proven rather than disproven. Why is an American, British, Canadian or New Zealand source (the likely place one will find an article in English) automatically or intrinsically any better at producing good musical criticism? Do you think that Australian musical critics know nothing about classical music or can't manage to comment on Rieu without bias? Besides which, there is one non-Australian source (of three sources from all location used) and it agrees with the other two in terms of what the controversy is with this artist. GermanicusCaesar (talk) 08:35, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

No, what I have against over representaing the Australian sources because the reader might not now if they represent a world view on Rieu, or consensus on him. They might, but the reader won't be sure, and this might distort their view of Rieu. ValenShephard (talk) 11:50, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

coming home y

our give 2A00:23C5:C05:B801:4816:A141:747E:BEE3 (talk) 08:15, 9 July 2021 (UTC)