Talk:Kazuhito Yamashita

added a bit of detail about the controversy

will cite sources properly in future including ophee, peter ingliss website and youtube video examples of the notorious 1984 toronto guitar festival performance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.43.210.23 (talk) 21:14, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I am quite sure that it is mentioned on the original 1981 LP cover that Yamashita wrote his guitar arrangement based on Ravel's orchestra scores, not on Mussorgsky's original piano scores for Pictures.. (Julio Alves, juliokw1@gmail.com) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.20.202.70 (talk) 21:37, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

"Controversy" takes up the bulk of the article

Did Yamashita sleep with the author's wife? PenguinJockey (talk) 03:07, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

• • Yeah, really! This article is not neutral or encyclopedic and smacks of sour grapes. arcueil — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.215.90.104 (talk) 20:50, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I second that, the current wiki entry is outrageous. Someone needs to redo this, promptly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.177.57.150 (talk) 03:30, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

• It's good that the article presents criticism. As a musician I agree with it - in fact so do many of my students: so some people do have critical opinions; which is why it should (please!) not be removed.
  Don't get me wrong: I actually enjoy listening to Yamashita sometimes - just for fun! You know: "let's see how fast he can go". It's the same kind of fun I have when watching e.g. speed-climbing!
  But musically I hate Yamashita and his interpretations (Bach in particular is terrible... so is Sor... etc. etc.)
  But I do think this article needs to be expanded. e.g. More detailed biographical information can be provided: I think he had some classes with Segovia (who I think - just listened and said nothing!). I think his teacher was his father...
  But please exuse me if I say that I'm not really interested in writing up this information. Musically I find Yamashita so irrelevant, that I just cannot be bothered. But maby one of his fans can provide some interesting biographical infos ;)Asisillll (talk) 11:49, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

• SEVERAL users have complained this article is completely biased, and one user consistently wants to paint the artist as despised by all. The user cherry picks quotes from a limited amount of sources. Indeed, within those same sources, such as Scott Cmiel, there are both contrasting and supportive statements made, yet only the negative ones are chosen. One could imagine that hundreds of positive reviews could be found for each descenting one. Granted Yamashita has hugely favorable reviews on youtube, these negative opinions seem to pertain to a minority of users, and likely stem from racism. I tried to modify the article to include both these views, but Whosafraidofthedark continues to demand a singular view. Granted this is not a war like that being fought in Iraq and Afghanistan, we should be able to reach a consensus? I say we pick two reviews to quote, one favorable, one not, and we return the paragraph that was removed highlighting Yamashita's prominence amongst the vast array of listeners (YouTube). Otherwise, this will continue to be a tit-for-tat undo. Clearly, we should be able to come to a consensus. Again, post one favorable and one against, return the paragraph highlighting his prominence on YouTube, and let us move on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.177.59.138 (talk) 14:20, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Wow finally I'm able to respond to you directly. Please consider creating a user-account, since your floating IP address is really a pain, if I try to reach you. Thanks for your thoughts. Nicely worded and even polite. Good stuff! However I'll try and politely say that your use and interpretation of youtube borders on the delirious. hahah joking of course. But seriously: you're not honestly suggesting we go ahead and use youtube comments to form an opinion, about what we should think about an artist, are you?! My opinion (try and live with it!) is that Yamashita is an exemplary modernist curiosity. A guy who is so obsessed with technique, that his interpretations of Bach and Sor (and almost everything else) does not stem from musical/emotional/expressive intentions, but instead from the desire to impress and thrill through technique. Now you (and many others) are welcome to be thrilled by Yamashita....! but I am not. And I'm glad to say that there are numerous quotes that support my view. I propose this: stop deleting the negative reviews, because I will not delete the positive ones, that you add (or might decide to add in the future). A neutral point of view is one that includes not only what YOU think about Yamashita (you're welcome to add verifiable positive reviews), but also what others think about Yamashita. Thus I maintain that negative reviews have a right to stay on the page: they are verifiable... and they reflect other existing views, which I happen to share. Deal with it or go elsewhere! Whosafraidofthedark (talk) 23:05, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

• Ok, surely we must be able to reach a compromise? What is wrong with providing one good review, and one bad review? YouTube provides the relevant statistics which show that the large majority of folks have a much different opinion of Yamashita than that advocated in the article. We are talking in the thousands. Indeed, the majority of folks who have posted here in this discussion panel also share this notion. They may not be trained guitarists like yourself, and may be lay folk, but that does not diminish the fact that he is enormously popular amongst the majority of listeners. There must be a compromise that can be reached where both opinions are posted in a balanced approach. What is wrong with posting what was there before with the two paragraphs, and one bad review (you can choose the worst one possible if you like), and one good review. This sounds reasonable? I will let you proceed to make the first iteration setting things up, and perhaps we can tweak the article to a consensus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.177.159.25 (talk) 12:30, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, I can see where you're coming from, but I will ask you to consider the possibility, that backing up your opinions with reference to youtube is rather weak. It's like saying that McDonalds is healthy food, because thousands of people purchase that "food" every day. (That misses many points, such as: e.g. McD's is relatively cheap. McD's is easily available and very visible. McD's uses targeted marketing concepts. etc)

At this point in time, and discussions with you, I'm not ready to compromise. It's just not necessary yet. As I've said: I won't be deleting any positive reviews that you decide to add. I think that's fair. But trying to mold wikipedia into a duplicate, of what most comments on youtube show (by deleting verifiable/citable newspaper/published reviews), is weak for an encyclo-wiki-pedia. Youtube comments are no good source. (You say that Yamashita "is enormously popular amongst the majority of listeners". I'd say it like this: Youtube seem to show that, of the people who have commented on Yamashita's videos, most seemed to be positive towards his playing.)

So please: don't underestimate a reader's ability to form a OWN opinion. Reviews are not truth, but simply someones opinion. I don't see anything bad about including reviews (where these reviews stem from serious reviews of newspapers, or published guitar-specific pages). A reader will make up his/her OWN mind, which may agree with a certain review (the reviewer's opinion), or not. Moreover I believe that the reviews that I've selected, will have the added benefit of causing the reader to think, instead of blandly excepting everything blindly: It may become clear (or in your case perhaps, astonish) that some people are not so favourable about Yamashita's brutal technique-driven way of playing; and I think the reviews show this. I'm not bashing Yamashita. I'm including reviews of opinions, that I value and agree with.

By the way: please consider creating a wikipedia account, since your use of an IP address (which constantly changes), makes it difficult for people to reach you. Whosafraidofthedark (talk) 21:48, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

• Hi, ok, I am going to make a change that includes your phrasing of the YouTube part, and I will post one good review to counter each bad review, as you mentioned. That way I give and you give to build a common consensus. An update, I have supplemented the Wiki article with information kindly provided by Aryeh Oron of Bach Canatas. By the way, I am interested, could you recommend to me one or two of your favorite guitarists. I would like to listen to those you believe understand the art in a way you enjoy. If they play Villa-Lobos, all the better(!) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.177.158.170 (talk) 13:11, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi there! Good stuff! The article is coming along nicely! I have the following suggestions:

• Group the positive reviews together. And group the negative reviews together. (This makes it less confusing for the reader.)
• Remove the youtube comments information (or general youtube information), since they are "only a reflection of what people who have viewed the video on youtube AND voted" think. (Consider this: I have never voted on a Yamashita video, ... and I think you can guess how I'd vote...). If you want to know when it is appropriate to use youtube info in wikipedia, then go ahead and read the article on Andy McKee!
• In pages such as those on artists, it's important to present opinions in a way that they are recognizable as opinions. As such I've changed the sentence "The Yamashita Chronicles by Matanya Ophee describes Yamashita's first appearances in the West and the subsequent politics which have probably prevented his wider recognition." to "Matanya Ophee, in his text "The Yamashita Chronicles", describes Yamashita's first appearances in the West and the author's (Ophee's) views of the subsequent politics which have probably prevented his wider recognition."; since this more clearly shows that it is good ol' Matanya's view, that Yamashita is negatively viewed, because of "politics".

Whosafraidofthedark (talk) 18:04, 24 February 2009 (UTC) (PS: Villa-Lobos was a better musician and guitarist, than many people think... Try follow up on that as best you can, instead of hunting down Yamashita's violent/brutal destruction of brazilian Villa-Lobos) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whosafraidofthedark (talk • contribs) 18:12, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

• Ok great on the article. I am pleased we were able to arrive at a consensus, despite having to make some concessions =) I LOVE VILLA-LOBOS, if you can recommend someone's interpretation that would be great. Currently I am really enjoying Fabio Zanon's interpretations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.177.59.60 (talk) 23:39, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

It looks like I'm a little late for the consensus review. This is my first look at the article, and I think it still seems biased. Wikipedia is not in business to provide reviews. The article should present facts about the guitarist's life and accomplishments and not get side-tracked into attempts provide a balanced viewpoint. There should be no viewpoint i n the article, i.e. facts and neutrality.Pkeets (talk) 20:52, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

That is incorrect (that "there should be no viewpoint in the article"). This can be clearly seen from the NPOV guidelines which state: "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources". So while different people's viewpoints don't constitute facts... they still really do exist, and thus belongs into the article (if properly sourced). Whosafraidofthedark (talk) 08:56, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

So, Where's the Controversy?

The first line of this article says, "His technique and expression are considered somewhat controversial." Being as this appears in the very first line, the implication is that this alleged "controversy" is, or has been a significant part of this performer's career.

Yet I find no further mention of any "controversy" in the entire article, and only one source referenced for the statement.

That's it? Really? I mean, c'mon, if the standard for being controversial is that ONE reviewer wrote ONE non-flattering article about the artist, then we would have to consider pretty much EVERY artist, living and dead, "controversial".

I suggest that the article needs a section which describes the nature of the controversy, and provides a few more supporting references. Failing that, the comment about the artist's technique, etc. being "controversial" should probably be removed, as it has not been supported.

BTW: the full text of the one article cited about the controversy is only available by subscription. Perhaps provide a more open source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.92.174.105 (talk) 21:56, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051022135326/http://www.musikrooms.com/festival2004/imgs/press-kit/kazhuito%26koyumi.jpg to http://www.musikrooms.com/festival2004/imgs/press-kit/kazhuito%26koyumi.jpg
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060510084033/http://www.musikrooms.com/festival2004/imgs/press-kit/kazuhito.tif to http://www.musikrooms.com/festival2004/imgs/press-kit/kazuhito.tif

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:44, 9 January 2018 (UTC)