Talk:Albert Ketèlbey

Untitled
"His most famous compositions include . . . Phantasy for String Quartet Listed but never found (1915)" --- does this make sense to anyone else? It doesn't seem that a lost work could be one of his most famous. Jason Fruit (talk) 17:33, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Infobox
The original author of this article is a supporter of infoboxes and therefore this article should have one. The infobox makes the article look much better as it balances the lead section, and occupying the whitespace at the top right with both image and text creates a much more pleasant aesthetic effect. --RexxS (talk) 19:51, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you, User:RexxS. I agree that the infobox improves the article, not only aesthetically, but also in terms of providing a handy quick overview to our readers, and by emitting machine-readable metadata. It's a win-win-win scenario! Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:02, 17 June 2015 (UTC)


 * It's a ghastly step backwards, but if you really wish to own the top right hand corners of every article, you'll only bully, bluster and lie your way into doing so, as you have done time and time again. - SchroCat (talk) 10:24, 21 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Whoa people, let's take a big, deep breath. I'd say we can respect article creators and lead editors - in both directions.  Montanabw (talk)  03:24, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

So because Pigsonthewing created a stub 11 years ago it's his call on the infobox?♦ Dr. Blofeld  18:57, 17 December 2015 (UTC)


 * When you created a stub on a musician, it was your call which I couldn't change, not by any expansion, - per arbcom decision. That should go both ways, no? I am not in the mood for ibox discussions, getting ready for holidays. Support this infobox, regardless of who created the article,unless you find a better solution to have the data of birth and death together, which Persondata used to supply.

Copyvio
If you are going to claim you wrote the BCC page (believable, given the errors it contains), you need to note that somewhere on this talk page. You also need to provide a citation on the page. – SchroCat (talk) 17:02, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * FFS Pigswill, instead of your knee-jerk reversions, see the thread on MRG's talk page (referred to in the edit summary), and do the fecking thing properly, rather than just edit warring to keep an unsourced COPYVIO in place. – SchroCat (talk) 20:29, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * That sort of name-calling is beneath you. Please remove it. There is no copyvio and was clear: "It wouldn't need to be removed from a copyright standpoint, but attributed ... to the government source until he demonstrates authorship." I've added an attribution at the top of this page, for the moment, as an aid to our re-users. --RexxS (talk) 22:06, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * You may have added an attribution, but given the laughably inaccurate information on the BCC page, it's not a reliable source, especially as no-one has bothered to add a fecking citation to the article! Attribution is one thing, but it's still a lazy-arsed cut and paste job. It's about as sub-standard a piece of work as anyone can achieve. – SchroCat (talk) 22:25, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Removal of sourced information
We are not in a position to dictate to readers how much detail they may wish to have about this subject. It is quite common for biographies to include detail such as the address where the subject lived, particularly when the address still exists. After all, if not for that curiosity, we would never have blue plaques on buildings where their notable subjects lived. I agree that there will always have to be a balance between the amount of detail and breadth of coverage, but I don't feel that:
 * The 1901 census shows him living with his parents and four siblings, at 168, Antrobus Road, Handsworth, Staffordshire (now Birmingham).

was reverted with the edit summary "WO work already mentioned". However, the only other mention of the WO in the article is:

"He undertook annual tours of Britain, conducting his music with municipal orchestras, and also worked with the BBC Wireless Orchestra."

which neither mentions that he conducted the WO, nor that the performances were broadcast, nor the date of the first such broadcast. The revert also removed the useful source. It should of course, be restored. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:39, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Superfluous fluff – nothing "of course" about it. – SchroCat (talk) 18:22, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Quite so, and parenthetically I noticed "Wireless Orchestra" bolded by our excellent colleague Andy in the BBCSO article. Not really useful, I thought, though fairly innocuous. If Andy or anyone else likes to create an article on the Wireless Orchestra it would perhaps be another matter; I might have had a go myself, but the Wireless Orchestra isn't really a notable subject. I know from my reading for the BBCSO article that "Wireless Orchestra" was never an established ensemble and was just a label applied to a much deplored ad hoc assemblage, packed with substitute players under the deputy system then still prevailing in London.  Tim riley  talk    19:56, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Birth name
There are numerous sources which say or discuss whether he was born "William Aston". Examples include:


 * Classic CD issues 69-74 page 16 "Further to last month's query on Ketelbey's name, the composer's birth certficate gives his parents as George Henry..."
 * The Encyclopedia of Popular Music page 806 "Ketelbey, Albert William b. William Aston"
 * The Gramophone volume 56/1 page 454  "Reviewing a record of Ketèlbey orchestral pieces (July, page 261), I commented on the sleeve-note's suggestion that the name Ketèlbey was a pseudonym of William Aston."
 * Greene's Biographical Encyclopedia of Composers page 1041 "There is a persistent legend that Ketèlbey's real name was William Aston..."
 * The Guinness Encyclopedia of Popular Music page 2287 "Ketelbey, Albert William b. William Aston"
 * The Heritage Encyclopedia of Band Music page 25 "ASTON, WILLIAM (l875-l959) William Aston, who composed under the pseudonyms Albert W. Ketelbey ..."
 * Répertitres page 435 "Albert (William) Ketèlbey (orig William Aston..."

Has anyone got to the bottom of this? The Classic CD item makes a reference to his birth certificate but I can only see a snippet. Andrew D. (talk) 09:48, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, Sant's biography is clear on this (after examining the birth certificate), and his name appears as Albert William Ketelbey. Greene's is right: the "Aston" name is little more than a legend. - SchroCat (talk) 09:52, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Sant says on page 11"Indeed as recently as the early 1970s Aston was believed by many to be his real name, until in January 1976, Fred Norris of the Birmingham Evening Mail put this theory to flight, when during his own research work he un-earthed a copy of Albert William KETELBEY's original birth certificate. Remarkably there are still some writers who do not believe his name was Ketelbey..."


 * We have a brief mention of the "William Aston" name in a footnote. As this was a common misconception, perhaps we should say more? Andrew D. (talk) 10:25, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks Andrew - now added. - SchroCat (talk) 10:38, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Part of the misunderstanding is that his surname is unusual/ rare and added to that his affectation in adding the inflection caused more confusion as to whether it was genuine. He did use pseudonyms as well. On this point I added to a footnote - not the main text - the fact that there is a small place name 'Kettelby/ Kettleby' a part of Bigby in Lincolnshire to show that his ancestors derived their name from an English place name. It is a minor point but an enlightening one. 2.96.216.228 (talk) 04:47, 10 August 2016 (UTC) Tony S

Sales figures
The article says: "In a Monastery Garden (1915), sold over a million copies..." I think I understand this correctly: it means that more than a million copies were printed and sold, in an era in which most homes had a piano, and this was a piece that any budding pianist could play quite easily. But I wonder how many readers will ask themselves: "a million CDs, that long ago?" Could/should this somehow be made clear? Imaginatorium (talk) 06:52, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

"'Appy 'Ampstead'" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%27Appy_%27Ampstead%27&redirect=no 'Appy 'Ampstead'] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. Nickps (talk) 23:36, 29 March 2024 (UTC)