Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Peer review/Pierre Boulez/archive1

< Wikipedia:Peer review

Pierre Boulez edit

Toolbox
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

French composers are now well-served on Wikipedia, thanks in large measure to @Tim riley: who also conducted an exceptionally helpful GA review of the present article. Of the post-war generation of French composers, only Messiaen has been taken through to FA. It would be good if his pupil, Pierre Boulez, could join him. Although he was a divisive figure, there's no question that he had an enormous impact on the musical world in the second half of the 20th century. I’ve gradually revised this article over the last couple of years, drawing on a wide range of sources. All comments and suggestions as to how it can be improved would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks, Dmass (talk) 16:48, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Tim riley edit

Booking my place—shall look in shortly (tomorrow I hope)—and adding meanwhile that among other editors who have contributed to getting French composer articles to FA are Antandrus, Brianboulton, RobertG and Smerus. Meanwhile, I'm looking forward to re-reviewing this. I enjoyed it prodigiously last time. More as soon as brain is working. Tim riley talk 22:43, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

These comments are made with FAC in mind, and address not only the points I think need addressing but also those I think may come up, rightly or wrongly, at FAC. I'll need more than one go, and this is the first batch. I leave the lead till my final batch, on the grounds that one can't judge how comprehensive a lead is until one has read the whole article. So, down to the end of the Biography part:

  • 1925–1943: Childhood and school days
  • A superstition has taken root in Wikipedia that anyone, even the subject of a biographical article, must be given his or her name at the first mention in each paragraph, rather than a pronoun. As far as I can discover this is not a requirement of the Manual of Style (don't quote me) and it certainly is contrary to the practice of the leading reference works such as Grove and the ODNB. So I predict that you will get comments about the opening of the second, third and fourth paragraphs in this section. I have always been too lazy and pusillanimous to defy the peddlers of this shibboleth (try saying that with a mouthful of cream crackers) and having raised the point I leave it to you to decide whether to stand firm or trim. The same consideration applies to the first and second paras of the next section and later, and I shall not repeat myself each time.
  • I have tried to chart a middle course (added the name to the second and fourth, but not the third as it's so soon after the previous mention). Is that kind of LibDem-ery permissible - or must I go full Corbyn or full Rees-Mogg, do you think? Dmass (talk) 16:28, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Give it a whirl, I'd say. You can always add more proper nouns if demanded at FAC. Tim riley talk 20:17, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1943–1946: Musical education
  • "key works of the early twentieth-century" – two points here. First, when the century is a noun, as here, rather than an attributive adjective, I don't think it wants the hyphen. More generally, you are not quite consistent (a half-time score will appear on the teleprinter – revenge is sweet) about 20th or twentieth throughout the article. The MoS is unequivocally for the former, but I have got away with the latter at FAC in my time. If you decide to standardise on the latter, which is much nicer after all, just be aware that you may be pressed to change it at FAC, though fingers crossed it will escape the attention of the MoS zealots.
  • I've defied the zealots - and eliminated the dashes. Dmass (talk) 16:28, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have done much to address my reservations at GAN about the outsize length of the article, but I shall mention any further points I think you could trim if you could bear to. The first is PB's presence in the crowd that witnessed de Gaulle's entry into Paris. Interesting, undeniably, but not of central relevance to the narrative,
  • I'm going to defend that one for the time being. I think it will emerge, as new biographical material comes out, that Boulez's experience of the war shaped him quite a bit and I think this detail brings that out. But I'm resigned to the fact that it may go in the end... Dmass (talk) 16:28, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...which indeed it did: see below... Dmass (talk) 14:53, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Having just asked for a cut it seems perverse for me to ask for an addition, but footnotes don’t affect the word-count: I wonder if we could have a note telling us whether PB's petition succeeded or not?
  • According to Joan Peyser: 'that petition did not bear fruit until 1949–50', which suggests to me that the promotion probably had nothing to do with the petition. Still worth a footnote, do you think? By the way, I would like to introduce a footnotes section, so do say if there are other points that could happily be relegated to it. Dmass (talk) 16:28, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it is, so I've added one. Dmass (talk) 10:36, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1946–1953: Early career in Paris
  • "He was soon appointed music director" – this is one place where I think you really do need the name, rather than a pronoun. The last man mentioned, to whom the "he" therefore points, is Barrault.
  • "It also broadened his horizons" – someone will object to the first pronoun here too. (I begin to feel like the soothsayer in Julius Caesar. You're probably lucky the Ides of March have passed.)
  • "a large work for eighteen solo instruments" – large in length? Not in instrumentation, clearly.
  • Replaced by 'substantial' - it lasts about 16 minutes. It is a demanding listen, shall we say?
  • "Le Visage nuptial and Le Soleil des eaux – these two titles bring us to the question of translations. The relevant bit of the Manual of Style says this:
For works best known by their title in a language other than English, an English translation of that title may be helpful. If the work is also well known by an English title, give the English translation in parentheses following normal formatting for titles: Les Liaisons dangereuses (Dangerous Liaisons). Where the work is not known by an English title, give the translation in parentheses without special formatting in sentence case: Weinen, Klagen, Sorgen, Zagen (Weeping, lamenting, worrying, fearing).
This is annoyingly ambiguous, because the first sentence indicates that translation is at the editor's discretion and the last that it is compulsory. For the composer FAC I have most recently been involved in we dodged the issue by giving the English titles of Rossini's operas as footnotes, so that them as needed a translation could go to one and them as didn’t weren't smacked in the eye with dozens of the damn' things. We got away with this at FAC.
  • That's extremely helpful, thank you. I don't think I have ever heard anyone refer to a Boulez title in translation, so I think footnotes are the perfect answer. They have the additional advantage that I can link to the note in both the biography and composition sections. It may take me some time. Dmass (talk) 16:40, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yikes! In an attempt to create two footnotes (For Visage and Soleil translations), I've created two references instead. Any tips on what I'm doing wrong?
  • I've added a perch for the notes. If you add "|group=n" before closing the double squirly brackets your translations will pop into the desired section. Tim riley talk 17:23, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perfect, thank you so much. Dmass (talk) 17:24, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've now followed up on this. It has the additional advantage of allowing me to drop down into footnotes the slightly longer explanations of a the title's significance, e.g. where it has a literary origin (and it reduces the word count...). Dmass (talk) 14:32, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Première" – although I still use this grave accent when writing elsewhere, I have given it up in Wikipedia, where the consensus seems to be that "premiere" is sufficiently Anglicised to do without one of those nasty alien diacriticals that smell of garlic.
  • It's a stray survivor, now gone. Dmass (talk) 21:15, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

1954–1959: The Domaine Musical

  • For once I find myself agreeing with the MoS. For foreign titles it bids us follow the native practice for upper- and lower-casing them. On that basis "Musical" should be "musical", both in the header and the first para.
  • I've agonised over this one. I originally had it in lower case but thought it looked odd (i.e. it looked like an English word). But you're right. Dmass (talk) 21:17, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "(according to the biographer, Joan Peyser)" – One dithers – well I do – about punctuating restrictive -v- non-restrictive relative clauses and phrases, but I'm pretty certain you don't want the comma here. She is one of many, and the comma makes her into the only one.
  • How interesting, I hadn't come across that distinction before. Adjusted. Dmass (talk) 21:22, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's the difference between (from Gowers) "Pilots who are careless do not live long" (which is probably true) and "Pilots, who are careless, do not live long", which is a gratuitous insult and factually incorrect. Here endeth the First Lesson. Tim riley talk 17:09, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1959–1971: International conducting career
  • "appointed the conservative Marcel Landowski head of music" – for clarity I'd add "as" before "head" here.
  • Agreed.
  • "Music Adviser" – I'm not persuaded capitals are needed for a job title – his other Cleveland posts are not capitalised – and I did just wonder if the English spelling of the second word is what the source says, rather than the American "advisor" (which, alas, is rapidly infecting our linguistic red squirrels).
  • You're right. Just checked the (US) book I have on the Cleveland Orch. and 'advisor' it is. Dmass (talk) 10:27, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1971–1977: London and New York
  • "He was Chief Conductor between 1971 and 1975, continuing as Chief Guest Conductor" – more capital letters I think you could decapitate, if that's the word.
  • Last para – you don't need another blue link to Wieland here.
  • 1992–2006: Return to conducting
  • "Principal Guest Conductor ... Conductor Emeritus" – more ulc you may like to rationalise.

More anon. On rereading I am struck again by the quality of this article which is top-notch. More comments to come shortly. – Tim riley talk 08:40, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Tim, all greatly appreciated. I look forward to working my way through them - and to the next batch (as and when you have time, of course). Dmass (talk) 08:49, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Interlude for references etc

To give my brain the afternoon off concentrating on the main part of the article, I've been dabbling in the bibilographic stuff at the end. More on the main text in due course, but for now some points on the sourcing and citation.

  • References -v- Sources: To the outward seeming the former are online, newspaper and magazine articles and the latter books, but two magazine articles caught my eye in the Sources list: "Barulich, Frances. 1988. [Review of recently published books by and about Boulez, including Boulez 1981, Glock 1986 etc.]. Notes 2nd series, 45, no. 1 (September): 48–52 and Edwards, Allen. 1989. "Unpublished Bouleziana at the Paul Sacher Foundation". Tempo (New Series) no. 169 (June), 4–15. Is this because they are learned journals rather than newsstand publications? As long as there is a consistent reason for the distinction, that should be fine at FAC, but I just mention it here to make sure your defences are in order.
    • That's exactly it, but thanks for the heads-up. Dmass (talk) 10:38, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Author links: consistency is needed here. Am I right in thinking you only add authorlinks in Sources if the author has not already been linked in the main body of the text? Fine, if so. Again, just checking.
    • All the author links have been added by other editors and I haven't yet sought to rationalise the approach. What's best, do you think? Dmass (talk) 10:42, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've removed all the author links from Sources and they are now linked in the main text. Dmass (talk) 07:25, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Links to publishers: once more, consistency is wanted. Why link the OUP (at Boulez 1991) but not the CUP, for instance? (Not Oxonian bias, I trust.) I haven't checked the rest to see if there are any other publishers who have WP articles to which you could link. (Personally I can't see much advantage to the reader in linking any of them, but to each his own.)
    • Completely agree. OUP delinked. Dmass (talk) 10:51, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prefaces and forewords: I wonder why you choose to mention them? Unless they, rather than the main book, are cited they seem to me to be otiose (one for your Leavisite English master). I'm always in two minds about naming translators, too, and am almost certainly guilty of much inconsistency in that regard in my own drafting.
    • Agreed, all now trimmed. Dmass (talk) 07:28, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • May I express reservations about the Further Reading section? When I was cutting my Wikipedian teeth a wise mentor asked me why I was listing works I hadn't thought worth referring to in the article. I said something to the effect that Wikipedia, like any encyclopaedia, is only a first port of call, and it might help some readers to have pointers to a few more recherché books and articles. "Fair enough", he said, "And have you read the publications on the list? Are they balanced, neutral and broad – not focused on one small aspect of the subject? Do they constitute a representative cross-section of the published material? Do they add to the information in the main sources?" Well, I'm asking you those same questions here. I have in my time (Edward Elgar, anyone? – now there's a CD set I have not tracked down: Boulez conducts Elgar) – failed to remove an existing Further Reading section when I first embarked on an FAC upgrade, and I have regretted it ever since. Incidentally, as things stand, there is a fair chance that my guru and now friend will do the source review for your FAC.
    • I note a similar view expressed by SchroCat below and I must say I agree. Although I've no doubt they are all excellent articles in their own right I can't answer in the affirmative to your mentor's questions above. I'll err on the side of caution and post something on the Talk Page before considering deleting. By the way, although Boulez conducts Elgar is an unlikely combo, Boulez conducts Vaughan Williams was not out of the question. See Roger Nichols' obituary: 'Age brought a softening of his stance on other topics too. A group of British critics, talking with him about British composers and knowing his general lack of enthusiasm in this area, were surprised when the name of Vaughan Williams came up and Boulez retorted: “Vaughan Williams … now he is interesting.”' Dmass (talk) 07:43, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • As no one has objected on the talk page, I think it's safe to cut this section now. Dmass (talk) 13:11, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In all these comments, let me emphasise, I am flagging things up for your consideration, and not attempting to do any heavyweight insisting. I shall return to the main text on my next visit here. – Tim riley talk 13:09, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Second batch on the text
  • Juvenilia and student works
    • "Gerald Bennett" – some reviewers call for a bit of context when one first mentions an authority – "GB in a 1986 study", or "the musicologist GB" or some such – but I'm not so sure. I think it is obvious from the fact that you're quoting them that they have the status to justify your doing so. I raise this point now so that you can decide your preferred policy if the point comes up at FAC.
      • Or indeed from my friend SchroCat, I see. Shins will be kicked IRL. Tim riley talk 20:09, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • The trouble is most of these writers are multi-talented. I see that Bennett is a composer, academic, founder of institutions etc; the next one mentioned, Peter O'Hagan is a pianist and academic etc., so I think I will resist for the time being. Quite see the need for first names on first appearance, which I will correct now. Dmass (talk) 19:27, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • If pressed, one wheeze you can adopt is to say "XYZ in his/her 2015 study of ABC says..." This doesn't actually add all that much of substance, but it gives the appearance of doing do, and has never, in my experience, been queried. Tim riley talk 17:14, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Douze notations and the work in progress
    • "Piencikowski" – first mention of him – his first name wanted here rather than at later mention.
  • First published works
    • "1946–49" – contrary to common sense and the practice of all other works of reference I can think of, the MoS demands full years for date ranges except for two consecutive years (so "his school days in 1942–43", earlier, is exempt). Idiotic, but there it is! You could try your luck, but I think it will be challenged.
    • "Jameux highlights" – another first mention lacking a first name.
    • "Le Visage nuptial (The Nuptial Countenance)" – you've footnoted the English translation at an earlier mention of the piece. I'd drop the bracketed one here.
      • I wonder if I can link it to the same footnote (since it's so separated from the earlier mention)? If so, could you work your magic if you have a moment? I will then mimic elsewhere. Dmass (talk) 07:24, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • That'll larn me! I think I can do this, but have only attempted it once, ages ago. I'll experiment and report back. Tim riley talk 07:53, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well, I'm blest! It works. I think I might treat the footnoted translations as actual titles and so capitalise them – The Nuptial Countenance etc. Tim riley talk 08:16, 10 April 2019 (UTC) Engagaging brain, I think it might be useful to add the code here: first mention: {{refn| blah blah |group=n|name=somename}} later mention(s): {{refn|group=n|name=somename}} Tim riley talk 08:24, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
            • Thank you, Tim, I'll work through all the translations as soon as I can, corralling them into the footnotes Dmass (talk) 22:03, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Griffiths" – another first mention where the given name is wanted.
    • "soprano, contralto" – there are those who want voice types blue-linked. I disagree: nobody reading this far into an article on Pierre Boulez will need to be told what a contralto is, but prenez garde! at FAC.
      • I'm with you on this. I'll watch and wait. Dmass (talk) 07:24, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • "the second (La Sorgue) is described by Griffiths as..." – at FAC you may also run into the Down-With-Passives brigade. I agree that the active voice is usually preferable to the passive, but not here: to write "Griffiths describes the second (La Sorgue) as..." puts the emphasis on Griffiths rather than on La Sorgue, which is not what you're after. Again, just be aware and keep your powder dry.
    • "a half-hour work of extreme virtuosity" – is "virtuosity" applicable to a work rather than the skill needed to perform it? The OED doesn't seem to think so.
      • Nice point. Tweaked accordingly. Dmass (talk) 07:24, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • "When Boulez played the work for Copland, the older composer" – three points on this. First, it implies that Boulez was capable of playing it, in which case, by your description of the piece, he must have been a better pianist than we have been given any hint of so far. Did he ever play in public? Secondly, I think I'd give Copland his first name as he is mentioned in his corporeal self: had it been "PB conducted Copland's XYZ" it would be another matter. Thirdly, most, but not all, of your readers will know that Copland was older than Boulez, and so your elegant variation is not ideal. Could you bear to make him "the latter"? (I know, but it is clear.) Or you could dodge the issue by redrawing as "Boulez played the work to Aaron Copland, who asked..."
      • Boulez was an excellent pianist (he was originally going to make a career of it); you may not have seen the Performer section when you wrote this. Let me know if you think it needs more. Copland now has his first name. Text redrawn as per your suggestion. Dmass (talk) 07:24, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Le Marteau sans maître and Pli selon pli
    • "Three short poems by René Char" – we've already had Char's first name. The repetition here is not obtrusive, but I just mention it.
    • "Xylorimba" – although, as you will have gathered, I think we all link far too many words, even I would expect a link here. I've never even heard of a xylorimba (though I may unknowingly have seen one played at the Barbican a month or two back when the LSO fielded seven percussionists and God knows how many instruments for Betsy Jolas's A Little Summer Suite, a really delightful piece.)
    • "melismatic" – worth a link, I think.
    • "direct comprehension is impossible" – I think I know what this means, but I'm not wholly certain. If, as I take it, it means that you can't make out what the words are, it could be clearer.
      • ...which I hope it now is, although with that particular poem of Mallarmé's I'm not sure that being able to make out the words is much of an aid to comprehension... Dmass (talk) 14:43, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Controlled chance
    • John Cage has been Johnned earlier. It isn't excessive to John him again here, I feel, but some reviewers may take a more austere view.
    • "1955–57/63" – I have no comment to make on this presentation of dates because I have nothing sensible to say, but you may well get comments from others.
  • Middle-period works
    • "who died of cancer in 1973 at the age of 53" – I don't think mention of poor Maderna's cause of death is necessary here: I imagine Boulez would have composed his memorial piece whatever Maderna had died of.
  • Last works
    • "Paul Griffiths" – should have had his first name transplanted to first mention, above.
    • "spoke of writing an opera based on Beckett's Waiting for Godot" – I'm not surprised this project failed to materialise – do we know if the rigorously protective Beckett estate had given the thumbs-up? (Just asking from curiosity – not suggesting it should be mentioned in the article)
      • We don't, although of course they allowed the recent Kurtag opera on Endgame. Perhaps they didn't worry unduly about the Boulez project since it was so unlikely to happen. Dmass (talk) 07:30, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

More anon. – Tim riley talk 07:51, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Final batch from Tim
  • Character and personal life
    • "Désormière" – first mention of him: best link here rather than later, as at present.
      • Fixed - and first name trimmed from second mention Dmass (talk) 10:34, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Writer Jean Vermeil" – uncharacteristic and not especially welcome false title. Likewise for the egregious Lebrecht later in the section.
      • Another new one on me! I assume the solution is to add definite articles, rather than to cut the descriptor. Dmass (talk) 10:41, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • Just so. (My mother taught English and her aversion to false titles such as (then) "premier Harold Wilson" was ineradicably passed on to me. Other people are less inclined to get their undergarments in a tangle about them than I am. Takes all sorts.) Tim riley talk 14:02, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conducting
    • "Domaine Musical" – lower case for the second word, as previously? (One stray capital M has survived your cull in the 1954–1959: Le Domaine musical section, I see.)
    • "Oliver Knussen, himself a distinguished composer-conductor" – certainly true, but the adjective is a touch peacocky without a citation. "Well-known" would pass muster without one, perhaps.
  • Opera
    • "Vice President of the planned Opéra Bastille" – perhaps lose the caps for the job title, and for "Director" in the line below.
      • I should have caught this after GA. You're showing remarkable patience... Dmass (talk) 16:33, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • "In 1988 a newly-appointed Director... I had to go back and reread this sentence, as the first time I got as far as "...dismissed Barenboim and Boulez" and thought Bergé dismissed them both. A comma after Barenboim woud make the meaning more immediately clear.
      • ...and a full-stop even clearer... Dmass (talk) 16:33, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • "they received a 90-minute ovation" – they being Chéreau and Boulez, presumably, but it could be clearer.
      • Actually I suspect the ovation was for everyone, singers and orchestra included (if the orchestra hadn't already gone to the bar). I've reworded. Dmass (talk) 16:33, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • "his staging for WNO" – if you're (very sensibly) abbreviating the title of the company here and later, you ought to put "WNO" in brackets at the first mention, in the 1992–2006: Return to conducting section.
  • Recording
    • "Domaine Musical" – ulc again.
    • "London Symphony Orchestra" – in full, twice. Perhaps just the LSO here, with the requisite bracketed abbreviation at first mention in the main text, at 1992–2006: Return to conducting?
      • Hmm. I'm now a bit torn as another editor (below) has said the opposite... On reflection I think bracketing the abbreviation works if the references are close together. If they're not then I doubt the reader will make the link - especially if only looking at one section. And if they're very close together I think the reader can probably work it out for themselves (also I'm risking inconsistency as I don't abbreviate the Chicago or BBC orchestras, for example). So I'm going to go with this: no abbreviations, unless the references are adjacent, in which case I will just abbreviate without bracketing. Dmass (talk) 07:29, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • "there was a first recording of Pli selon pli" – a date would be good for such a major event.
      • I couldn't agree more. I'm sure you were queuing outside your local record shop on that magical day in 1969... Dmass (talk) 07:37, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • Less of your sauce, if you please. It so happens that I got the LPs out of the (wonderful) Liverpool Central Music Library shortly after the release. It is true that I have for the intervening fifty years resisted the urge to revisit the piece, but I gave it a go in my teens. Tim riley talk 18:53, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • You're full of surprises! See you at Stockhausen's Donnerstag aus Licht at the RFH next month? Dmass (talk) 20:27, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Writing and teaching
    • "Domaine Musical" – ulc revisited.

And that's all from me. A very fine article indeed, and I look forward to seeing it at FAC when you are ready for the off. – Tim riley talk 10:02, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, Tim, all very helpful indeed. I will definitely call on you when I move on to FAC. Dmass (talk) 07:37, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment en passant: the added pictures are excellent. Tim riley talk 20:16, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SC edit

Will pop along shortly. - SchroCat (talk) 12:05, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say Dmass, that you write beautifully. I don't think I've seen such a well-polished article from a relative newbie in an awfully long time. It's clear, complete, no wasted language or nonsense, just very nicely done. It really is a pleasure to read. There are a few points to pick up on, which are more about "Wikifying" it, rather than your writing.

Musical education
  • The 'sniper fire' bit sort of jars, and I wonder if it's really needed. If it had an effect on PB, then all well and good, but dropped into the surrounding sentences about his musical development and it doesn't sit well.
    • I can feel a consensus coming on. Cut. Dmass (talk) 08:00, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
International conducting
  • "a short and brilliant piece": this is NPOV - brilliant according to who?
    • "brilliant' in the sense of glittering rather than marvellous. Tim R asked the same question at GA. The Griffiths citation at the end of the sentence was meant to cover it, but perhaps it doesn't do this trick... Dmass (talk) 19:17, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
First published
  • "half-hour work of extreme virtuosity" says who?
    • Now replaced with a more specific comment from Goldman. Dmass (talk) 19:17, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Serialism
  • "According to Alex Ross": who he?
  • "(1950–51; withdrawn)" Withdrawn? You may want to add a footnote to explain what you mean
Recording
  • "In addition he conducted three parts of the piece 'Boulez Conducts Zappa: The Perfect Stranger'" - needs a citation
    • Agreed - and took the opportunity to tweak more generally. Dmass (talk) 19:17, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Decorations and awards
  • Almost no citations in this, which will be enough in its own right to sink an FAC
    • This is one of the only sections I've steered clear of. It's the (very diligent) work of other editors. If others think it is valuable, I will try and track down citations but, before I do so, how valuable do people think it is? Might a short paragraph with the main honours be preferable? Happy to be guided. Dmass (talk) 14:49, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have not forgotten about this. Tim has provided a very sensible solution but it needs a bit of time and thought - which work is not allowing at the moment. It will be done though. Dmass (talk) 19:19, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The linked text (about the Grammy's) will also be criticised, as will the fact it looks like it goes to a blog (put in a reference to the relevant pages at the awards archive at the Grammy's site (www.grammy.com)).
In his Who's Who article, Boulez listed his CBE and Hon. doctorates include: Cambridge, 1980; UCLA, 1984; Bristol, 1986; Oxford, 1987; Brussels, 1988; Montreal, 1993; RCM, 1997; Birmingham, 2008; Brno Tchéquie, 2009; London Univ./Royal Academy, 2010. Knight, Order of Merit (Germany). Awards include: Grand Prix de la Musique, Paris, 1982; Charles Heidsieck Award for Outstanding Contribution to Franco-British Music, 1989; Polar Music Prize, Stockholm, 1996; Royal Philharmonic Soc. Award, 1999; Wolf Prize, Israel, 2000; Grawemeyer Award, Univ. of Louisville, 2001; Glenn Gould Prize, Glenn Gould Foundn, 2002; Kyoto Prize, Japan, 2009; De Gaulle-Adenauer Prize, 2011; Giga-Hertz Prize, 2011; Golden Lion for Lifetime Achievement, Venice Biennale, 2012; Gloria Artis Gold Medal, 2012; Robert Schumann Prize for Poetry and Music, 2012; Karol Szymanowski Prize, Foundn Karol Szymanowski, 2012; Frontiers of Knowledge Award, BBVA Foundn, 2013. I'd say anything uncited on the existing list in the article that isn't in this list approved by Boulez can be blitzed. Tim riley talk 15:59, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds like a good plan. Just wondering how I would cite it though, as I don't have access to Who's Who. Any suggestions gratefully received. Dmass (talk) 16:44, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly advise joining Westminster Library. It's free to all, residents or not, and has online access to tons of marvellous stuff like this. Tim riley talk 18:45, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Tim, that's great. Sorry for the delay in replying - work intervened... Dmass (talk) 10:25, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Further reading
  • Do we need this? If they are important enough to be included as additional reading, then they should be used in the article. If the sources used are better than these, take them out (although if there are any with direct links, these can be dropped in to the External Links section.
    • Now gone after inviting comments on the Talk page (none received). Dmass (talk) 19:20, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
General points
These really are nitty gritty things, but people will pick up on them at FAC. In some ways they will make the prose less smooth, but that's one of the problems in trying to write on WP.
  • Check your ." and ". and make sure you are the right side of WP:LQ
  • Date formats. See MOS:DATERANGE for the very few exemptions to 2012–2013 format. There are a few places where I think you have too many in the 2012–13 format. if in doubt, go with consistency at all times
  • "According to xxx". You write as if all of us know who Ivan Hewett or Hopkins and Griffiths are. A word of two to suggest their expertise is always best (the biographer, or the musicologists, etc) (With Hopkins and Griffiths, we don't even get their first names, and I'm not sure I can see their work in the biography, but I may have overlooked it)
  • You need to be careful about putting things in WP's voice, which is where we differ from most biographies. There is a paragraph in the "Controlled chance" section that reads:

His use of chance is very different from that in the works of, for example, John Cage. While in Cage's music the performers are often given the freedom to create completely unforeseen sounds, with the object of removing the composer's intention from the music, in Boulez's music they may only choose between possibilities that have been written out in detail by the composer. This method, when applied to the successional order of sections, is often described as "mobile form", a technique innovated by the composer Earle Brown and inspired by the mobile sculptures of Alexander Calder, to whom Brown and Cage introduced Boulez when he was visiting New York in 1952.[161]

Two things sprung out at me with this. 1. Why Cage? It's likely that one of the two sources compares them, so you'd be best to identify them; 2. You have put an opinion (about the use of chance) in WP's voice. In fact that opinion is that of the source(s). It may be better say "Barbedette compares Boulez's use of chance with that of Cage's..." Slightly less natural than the way you've written it, but it means we avoid giving the appearance of a POV.
  • Three non-free images may seem too many - I would expect you will get pushed on these at FAC as they don't really add to our understanding of Boulez.

Lovely article. I wish there were more that were as easy to read. Please let me know when you are off to FAC, and ping me if you have any questions or want clarification. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:47, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for the very helpful comments - and the kind words. Both greatly appreciated. I look forward to working through them and will revert if I'm struggling. Dmass (talk) 11:01, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments of Cg2p0B0u8m edit

  • 1. 1st para : Founder of institutions.... sounds a little odd, is there another way of saying this, eg 'musical groups'? (I just checked Thomas Beecham and that does not say he was a founder of institutions, although he was)
    • I agree, I've always disliked this but have never been able to think of a better expression. I think institutions is probably right: he only founded one (chamber) orchestra. I've proposed 'creator of musical institutions'. Comments welcome. Dmass (talk) 19:28, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2. 1st para : should you specify 2nd World War?
    • I think given his dates that ought not to be necessary. I'll leave for the time being and see whether others pick up on this. Dmass (talk) 19:30, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • 3. 1943-46 3rd para : "René Leibowitz, a follower of Schoenberg" - again it struck just a bit odd, given that he was more than that
    • Agreed. Added fact that he was a composer. Dmass (talk) 19:31, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

4*. 1946-53 1st para : I am not clear if B played the ondes Martenot at the Folies, particularly as the next sentence goes on and talks about "the instrument"?

  • I've amended 'the instrument' to 'the ondes'. Dmass (talk) 19:35, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • 5. 1954-59 : maybe there is a good reason why you do not want to link to the Théâtre Marigny article? Also I have not done a rigorous check but there seemed to be quite a lot of possible other links missing...
  • 6. 1954-59 2nd para maybe more links?
  • 7. 1971-77 is this the place to mention Boulez's rather limited conducting repertoire?
  • I'm not sure it's right to say that he had a limited repertoire. Of course there were composers he didn't like and so didn't conduct (Tchaikovsky, Verdi) - but then most conductors have blind spots. The period you mention was when he conducted most often outside his core repertoire. In 1971, for example, he conducted pieces by Bach, Mozart, Handel, Prokofiev, Schumann, Beethoven, Schubert, Gabrieli, Purcell, Haydn, Liszt and Brahms. Not bad for an old modernist! Dmass (talk) 19:46, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • 8. 1977-82 There is a very long dash in para 3
  • 9. 1992-2006 3rd para : I don't think you need the WNO "(1992, Welsh National Opera ("WNO")"
  • 10. 2006-16 - do we normally give cause of death?
  • 11. Opera - It's fine not having critical comments, but there were other views on his conducting (likewise there were ripostes to his attack on Landowski)
  • 12. Personally I would delete the trivia about Private Eye at the end.

I hope this helps, Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 21:56, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for these points, I look forward to working through them. Dmass (talk) 07:14, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Pierre_Boulez/archive1&oldid=908741698"