Talk:Camille Saint-Saens/Archive 1

Hyphen

Shouldn't there be a hyphen in the article title here (ie, Camille Saint-Saens). His name is certainly always spelled that way. I'd change it myself, but I don't know if there's a policy about not having hyphens in article titles for some reason (and what about accents as well; "Camille Saint-Saëns"). --Camembert

Hyphens are fine (they weren't on the old system). We can have accents, but there's an ongoing debate over how a page title with an accent affects that article's Googleability (see the policy pages). It's not a convention that's universally followed, and I've not been keeping up with the debate. In brief: either have Camille Saint-Saens -> redirect to Camille Saint-Saëns, or the other way round. -- Tarquin

Well, I can't see anything about accents in article titles in the policy pages (I may be missing something), and I've never seen his name spelt without the accent, so I've moved it here. If it seriously affects Google, somebody can switch it back, btu if that's done we'll have a mis-spelled article title, which is worse than missing a few hits from Google, in my opinion. --Camembert

Yes there is a policy on this issue and it is in wikipedia:naming conventions. "Name your pages in English and place the native transliteration on the first line of the article unless the native form is almost always used in English." Native transliteration includes the use of accents. In this case Google finds 10k hits with the ë spelling and 17k with the e spelling (looking only at English language sites yields 5k for the ë spelling and 10k for the e spelling). I would go with the dominant spelling (most people don't know how to create an ë with out having to copy the character and therefore will not be able to link to this article easily). At the very least Camille Saint-Saens should redirect here (which it does). --mav

Apologies, I thought that the transliteration guidelines applied only when we were moving from a completely different alphabet (Cyrillic, Greek, Urdu, whatever) - as French uses the same alphabet as English, I didn't think of it as transliteration at all. In fact, I hadn't given the whole matter a great deal of thought because for some reason I was thinking that Google ignored accents altogether. I suppose that if the spelling without the accent is more common (as it seems to be), the article should be there, but I'm convinced this spelling is the "right" one (in that it's the one used by CS-S himself and by English paper encyclopaedias, dictionaries, etc), and with the redirect from the more common spelling, there's no major problem is there? Anyway, do what you think is best.

Enough of this - I hate articles where the talk page is longer than the main entry... --Camembert

The hyphen is entirely a French-language thing, similar to spelling names like "McDonald" with a small-c followed by a capital, and is absolutely necessary. On a related note, I'm also of the opinion that the ë is just as necessary, since (1) it affects the pronunciation of the name; (2) it is not transliterated or translated; and (3) that's simply how it's spelled (perhaps English unilinguists won't understand the point). In any event, people can easily reach this page without having to type the accent. Furthermore, similar articles maintain the proper accents in their titles, such as those on Fauré and Dvořák. --Todeswalzer|Talk 01:36, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Confidence of the European man

The Maestoso of the second movement is clearly an expression of the confidence of the European man in himself, in his technology, his science, his "age of reason".

Is this a POV (some sort of music criticism) or can it be supported by facts (such as text of Saint-Saëns's correspondence)? Del arte 20:24, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

---

this work in particular is inserted in the hearth of the sense of "gigantism" of the dying XIX century, it is clearly enmarked alongside with the trend of the Eiffel Tower, the Universal Exposition at Paris and the beginning of the "belle epoque".

Was this passage machine translated? I can't make much sense of it at all. Would someone who knows what this is meant to say kindly have a stab at fixing it? Graham 04:04, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Best Pianist After Liszt?

It is shoddy scholarship to objectively state that Saint-Saëns "was unequalled on organ" based on Liszt's remarks, and it is even worse to assert that Saint-Saëns' pianism was "rivaled only by Liszt". The latter statement is especially unfair to virtuosi of the day including Dreyschock, Anton Rubinstein, Henselt, and Alkan.

The following has been removed from the article:

Saint-Saëns' compositional style:

In performance, Saint-Saëns was unequalled on the organ and rivaled only by Liszt on the piano—Liszt himself thought that they were the two best pianists in Europe. However, Saint-Saëns' concert style was subtle and cool; he sat unmoving at the piano.

--Wikipedia User 04:06, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough. The paragraph seems to have reappeared, however, so I'll qualify and expand on it. --Mordant21 22:31, 7 June 2005 (UTC)

The original paragraph was obviously POVed, but if it is in fact true that Liszt thought of Saint-Saëns and himself as the best pianists in Europe, that certainly deserves to be mentioned. — Pladask 11:41, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

Liszt said in 1866 that he thought Bizet was the best organist in Europe, not pianist - by Liszts observation the best 3 pianists in Europe in his lifetime were himself, Alkan and Bizet. --MaxW

What is the scholarly basis for the assertion by CSS, that he was a pederast, presented in the article?

I don't think it is that important to be talking about this. We don't even know if Liszt was such a great pianist. I have never heard him. I think that he could have been a great pianist, but it is just a likley that he wasn't. Let me just say that from Liszt's music it would be hard for me to believe that he was very musical (except for his sonata) and that there is no way we will know who the great pianists were back then.

I don't know who posted the above paragaph, but I found the comments to be pedantic and ignorant to the highest degree.

I suppose that if no one alive has ever heard Liszt play, then we should entirely disregard the thousands of concurring written accounts which exist, that reiterate the most amazing performances ever heard. At least, that's what the person above seems to think. Also, I don't know who you are to think that you can judge the musical quality of Franz Liszt.Only someone with no real musical training and only a limited music history knowledgebase would say that at all. Saying that only his Sonata was musical is completely absurd. His Rhapsodies may not have had the illustration and poetry of the Chopin etudes, but they were certainly just as developed in the way of technique. ( he was ,in fact, the dedicatee of the etudes). If whoever posted the comment above needs any more assurance that they are WRONG, look up Don Juan fantasy somewhere and listen, to see if you can honestly deny that as excellent music.( also I would love to hear why it is "likely" that he was not a great pianist)

Agreed 100%. As I've noticed on many online forums, it has become trendy to speak lowly of Franz Liszt in general. (of course this trend was started by Brahms and Schumann, not to slight their work at all, but regretably their pretensions have found their way into modern music criticism) I don't care if he was a good pianist or not, (though if his compositions mean anything, I don't think many people other than someone who was an amazing pianist would compose the way he did, any music score or midi indicates this without much dispute) but the more I hear his work, I realize that he was an incredible composer... Again this is subjective, but I can't believe how much his work is slighted these days.

That said, I would be all the more amazed if he were not an exceptional piano player, and if all of the accounts of his playing, even by his rivals, were not true. It's kind of like claiming that Bach or Buxtehude were unlikely to be skilled organists, because no one observed them play, ignoring the fact that like Liszt, their compositions+improvisations seem to indicate tremendous virtuosity.

I will also add that I think Liszt was far more proficient in music theory than he was given credit, for one example he was able to compose contrapuntal pieces when he desired. (in his organ works) Similarly, I think the criticism was directed towards him was due to the fact that people at the time were generally hostile towards the new Romantic composers.

Finally, maybe it's just me but I think Liszt's output was far more diverse than Chopin's, and I far prefer it... that's just me.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.87.74.5 (talk) 04:50, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Jewish Heritage

I have read from some sources that Saint-Saëns' mother was Jewish. Can anyone confirm this for me? If so, then I think we should add him to the "Jewish classical musicians" category. Batman Jr. 23:08, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

This is first I hear of this. I don't think it true but interesting if it is. Nunetide

NPOV

It seems to me that the "Reputation" and "Style" sections go a little far in attacking Saint-Saëns.

"He had been the embodiment of artistic modernity during the 1850s and 1860s, but soon transformed himself into a crusty and somewhat bitter reactionary."

"As a composer, Saint-Saëns has always bordered on the edge of obscurity, often criticized for his refusal to embrace romanticism and at the same time, rather paradoxically, for his adherence to the conventions of 19th century musical language. He is sometimes disparagingly referred to as "the greatest second-rate composer who ever lived" and 'the greatest composer who was not a genius.'"

"Saint-Saëns the composer was widely regarded by his contemporaries and some later critics as writing music that is elegant and technically flawless, but occasionally dry and uninspired."

"The piano music, while not as deep or as challenging as that of some of his contemporaries, forms the stylistic connection between Liszt and Ravel."

These are all very subjective and I'm not sure if they're totally accurate. I'm adding an NPOV tag, so if anyone wants to discuss it, I'm all ears!

Romain Rolland, a prominent French writer of fiction ("Jean Christophe") and artistic criticism, wrote a book of musical criticism ("Musiciens d'aujourd'hui"), published in 1908, with a chapter on Saint-Saens, where he made many comments about Saint-Saens's classicism, "untouched by passion," etc. The discussion there supports the statement that "the composer was widely regarded by his contemporaries and some later critics as writing music that is elegant and technically flawless, but occasionally dry and uninspired." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.20.193.56 (talk) 06:34, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Smedley Hirkum 08:49, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Agreed; pretty biased. On the other hand, some say he was responsible for saving classical music in France. Navins 03:35, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree, this goes too far. Every great composer has recieved tons of negative criticism, it is unneccessary to go around trumpeting it unless it is raised on strong grounds. Also, the article states that Saint-Saëns is only rememberd for his organ symphony, 2nd and 4th concerto, the opera Samson et Dalia and The Carnival of the Animals (this list is already too long for the word 'only' to apply), but this list is way too short! What about Danse Macabre and his cello concerto? He is also remembered for his chamber music, the oboe and bassoon sonatas are a great and importnant retribution to the repertoire of these instruments. --Satúrnus 12:36, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Let's be serious here. They aren't attacking Saint-Saens, but merely saying he is not a great composer. He is a good composer, but he really only survied becasue of his Carnival of the Animals and 3rd Symphony.

Let's be serious. The role of wikipedia is not to label artists as "good" or "great." An encyclopedia ought to be objective. If you care to cite your sources and quote a critic who says, "Saint-Saëns is not a great composer. He is a good composer," feel free. But wikipedia is not a personal soapbox for you, I, or anyone else to express our personal opinions on the subjective quality of musicians. 66.17.105.226 13:23, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

"Let's be serious here. They aren't attacking Saint-Saens, but merely saying he is not a great composer. He is a good composer, but he really only survied becasue of his Carnival of the Animals and 3rd Symphony."

That was quite honestly one of the most disgusting things that can be said; and said by someone that obviously knows nothing of music history. ("Le Carnival des Animaux," for example, was only performed after his death.) Pie87 July 12th, 2006

...And OBVIOUSLY Saint-Saens' Introduction and Rondo Capriccioso and his 3rd violin concerto didn't help him survive, right, Master IDon'tKnowAnythingAboutViolinMusic? Your knowledge, or lack thereof, astounds me.TheFlyingSquirrel 17:25, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

... Yes and the second piano concerto, who was loved by Liszt, probably the most popular, and without a doubt the most fanatically loved musician of the 19th century, did surely not help his reputation a bit? Saint-Saëns's flawless oboe and bassoon sonatas, atributed to the way too small repertoire for these instruments probably made all oboists and bassoonists hate him or what? --194.144.188.193 12:27, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

The "crusty and somewhat better reactionary" line is definitely NPOV. I don't think there's anything wrong with the second line, while I don't necessarily agree with it, it's a fact that he's been often crticized in these terms. The last line seems borderline. DSZ

I've had a go at removing some of the subjective comments. I've also moved the npov tag so there's one on each section mentioned above, not one at the top of the whole article. I think it was Debussy who said Saint-Saens was "the greatest composer who wasn't a genius", but I can't find a citation. --RobertG ♬ talk 10:40, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I at least found somebody giving Thomas Beecham as the source of the second-rate quote, although it seems that it may have been more along the lines of "some of his music is second-rate" than "he's entirely a second-rate composer". Unfortunately, I don't know the actual citation at this point. If Debussy is the one who made the comment about him not being a genius, it should at least be made clear that the quote says more about their rivalry than about Saint-Saens' talent. I also dropped the parts about bordering on obscurity and the "limited" number of works that make up his legacy—the first comment is fairly ridiculous, and given how many works are listed "limited" is hardly the right adjective. --Michael Snow 04:47, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

What should "reputation" include _besides_ subjective comments? What is nessesary is that we know whose judgment we're dealing with, and quotes would be helpful.. All I have close at hand is Ravel (Shapiro's Encyclopedia of Quotations About Music): "I'm told that Saint-Saëns has informed a delighted public that since the war began he has composed music for the stage, melodies, an elegy and a piece for trombone. If he'd been making shell-cases instead it might have been all the better for music." Letter to Jean Marnold, Oct. 7 1916 I take this as an ironic comment on S-S's nationalistic polemics rather than a dismissal of the music... Sparafucil 00:32, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Misconceptions of the title "Virtuoso" in some of the Discussion/Anon

Saint-saens may have been a talented pianist, prodigious sight-reader, and profound technician, but he certainly did not deserve the title "virtuoso". In fact, he himself admitted he was no virtuoso or even strived to be one.(see Harold C. Schoenberg's book: "The Pianists")

The nonsense about Saint-Saens being commended as the second greatest pianist must be cleared up. Liszt specifically said that he, Von Bulow, and Bizet were the best pianists of the day.(see Harold C. Shoenberg's book: "The pianists") Also, Henselt and Alkan were shy and reclusive, too scared to perform in public, therefore could not seriously be called virtuoso material. Lastly, Dreyschock was considered a virtuoso by many but his career was so short and his pianistic feats so shallow, that any informed person could not possibly put him in the same rank as Liszt. Dreyschock was known only for his ability to play the melody of Chopin's "revolutionary" etude in octaves at the indicated tempo. It took him a great deal of practice to achieve this whereas Liszt copied the feat with no practice at all during a live performance of chopin's F minor etude.

When posting comments on a discussion please make sure you are correctly informed as to the reality of any assertations or speculations you may have, so more erroneous rumors do not germinate.

Date of birth

This article says 3 October but Grove (opera) and Oxford both give 9 October so I am correcting this. --Kleinzach 13:14, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Sound files / quality

I don't mean to offend anybody, but I listend to the sound files and it struck me that performance wasn't quite as expected, to say the least. Also, the "production" sounds a bit like a microphone and a tape recorder.

I understand that it may not be easy to publish professional material under the GFDL. And it's probably not bad for a college orchestra, but still...

DI (talk) 20:51, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Which sound file are you talking about? Some of them sound pretty ok to me if you ask me. Since they are free you have to have certain expectations. You can't get something free and except it to be a Pavarotti. I think the thinking is that they are just free examples to show you what his music is like. They aren't meant to be the best version of it since you have to pay for that.

While we are on this, has anyone heard any sounds of Saint-Saens playng his own music on the piano. I heard there are some very old recordings out there. They may be free from copywrite because there so old.

Piano Concerto 2 in G Minor

I am no professional critic, but the style section in particular seems very harsh; this piece in particular strikes me as inspired. Mistercupcake (talk) 08:27, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes this is one his most famous concertos for piano. Plus there is his concerto for piano no. 5 Nunetide

It's often been said the 2nd concerto "opens with Bach and ends with Offenbach". Quite an apt comment. -- JackofOz (talk) 01:59, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, the style section is certainly harsh, but I don't think it should be changed; he is often dismissed by critics as being a really good composer, just not a great one, and this article does a good job with conveying that impression. Personally, however, I think that such criticism is unfounded - all 5 piano conertos are magnificent pieces, in my opinion, and the last movement of the second piano concerto is nowhere near being like Offenbach (the above comment is certainly not apt at all). In fact, I would rank the 5 Saint-Saens concertos along with Beethoven's, and I think there are some who agree with me.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.3.247.214 (talk) 23:25, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Homosexuality

Someone got banned forever for pedophilic related content for putting a lot of this stuff in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JuliaMyers (talk • contribs) 20:30, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

You really should cite something like that if you're going to come right out and say it. The whole debate is widely cited within the article. You should leave it in, regardless of your opinion, which has no bearing on cited content. Icarus of old (talk) 04:35, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

How do I cite that someone got banned for putting pedophilic stuff in wikipedia? If she/he got banned for it, doesn't it mean it shouldn't be in there regardless of what I think of the content? I'm just very confused by what you mean. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JuliaMyers (talk • contribs) 15:50, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

It means, that even if you prove someone got banned (without proof, it's hearsay), the information is still cited and reliable, no matter who put it on Wikipedia. The cites all work and they add something notable about Saint-Saens' character. So, yes what you think about the material is irrelevant. Your thoughts on the matter include "thinking" it shouldn't be on Wikipedia because "someone who added it got banned for putting pedophilic content in wikipedia" (sic). Icarus of old (talk) 19:29, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

There was an ongoing discussion as to Saint Saen's homosexuality, with a passing reference in the article. I added numerous sources backing up the fact that Saint Saen is widely regarded as homosexual. The article has been edited without explanation, and all my sources have been removed. I don't know how to revert the page, or whom to contact, but this act of censorship should not be tolerated.72.78.165.148 (talk) 00:49, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if you are referring to the passage I removed not too long ago, but if you were, I removed it because sources from google should not be used for backing claims in wikipedia. If, on the other hand, you are referring to something that happened prior to that, the only thing I can say is that if a valid reason was not given for the deletion, unfortunately this is just one of countless examples of homophobic editing on wikipedia. You are not alone in your experience. The best way to address that is to justify your inclusion here and make the appropriate changes to the text with the inclusion of appropriate sources. Belcanti (talk) 01:04, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

When you say "sources from google," are you referring to Google book searches? If so, there is a wiki page describing how to cite such sources here. If google book searches, which often display an entire book's text for reading, are not permitted, then why would guidelines for citing them exist? Also, if ebooks are invalid, why then would any other book be valid? If you don't mean book searches, then I'm sorry because I don't follow your thinking. Google is a search engine. It merely provides access to sources, credible or not. Now that I've registered, I can view the history, and will try to dig up the sources I posted. Those sources backed up a statement roughly to the following: ...Saint-Saen is regarded by most scholars today as homosexual. I remember there being about five or so. I'll post the sources here for discussion, rather than spark any edit wars. Thanks for your quick response.Strclybznz (talk) 06:27, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

OK. I took a quick look at the history. My original sourcing edits were made. Look in the "middle years" section. My sources were #2-8. None is a blog and all seemed quite credible. Also, the discussion page has been edited, but they didn't remove a reference I made to page 921 of the William Percy source the discussion page when I made that "Regarding Source..." entry. As you can see, there was quite a long discussion/debate surrounding whether to include and how to include references to his sexuality. I hope that shows that my edits were not out of left-field. They were an attempt to build consensus, and settle the argument. Also, I realize that my references were not typed in proper format; I have learned since. Anyway, removing my sources is one thing, but erasing the whole debate from the discussion page smacks of malice to me. Thanks for your attention to this...Strclybznz (talk) 06:52, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Something strange with the Carnival of the Animals

I'm confused by what the page says about Saint-Saens's Carnival of the Animals. It says that he "debuted" it in 1886. But didn't he try to hide it because he was afraid it would ruin his reputation? I thought it wasn't made public until after he died. Something doesn't make sense here.

There's also a cool performance of it on youtube with Misha Maisky and Roger Moore of James Bond fame. No Roger Moore doesn't play any instrument. He reads a poem before each part, like a poem on kangaroos before the kangaroos part. I think he redeemed himself here for the atrocity of his James Bond.

Boondigger (talk) 05:10, 16 June 2008 (UTC)