Talk:Benjamin Britten/Archive 1

Removed: same
I pulled this sentence out:
 * The result of this hostility was that Britten's friends and supporters intensified their efforts to proclaim his genius, with the result that all his work was of the same high quality.

because I've no idea what it means, and therefore suspect no-one else will either. Does it mean charlieF 12:17 Mar 13, 2003 (UTC)
 * 1) The friends/supporters rallied to Britten's cause, claiming that all his work was of high quality. [More likely]
 * 2) The friends/supporters assisted Britten, so that all his work was of high quality. [Less likely and certainly less NPOV]

Removed:Figured bass rules
I'm removing this sentence:
 * Only a few years before, a new work by Gustav Holst had been roundly condemned for not following the rules of 18th century figured bass.

Figured bass doesn't have "rules" as such - it's a system of notation rather than anything else. Perhaps it is meant to mean that it was condemned for not following the rules of harmony used in the 18th century, but if it does it should say that (and I doubt that would be true anyway - music in England at that time wasn't the most forward-looking in the world, but it wasn't that bad). The whole "commentary" section, indeed, needs work - "The present contributor considers..." is not a suitable way of writing for the Wikipedia (don't have time to work on this right now though). --Camembert

Benjamin Britten's continental influences will probably preclude him forever from the fame and respect he truly deserves in Britain. However fortunately his music does travel well and is appreciated in the rest of the world. The reactionary nature of the natives of Aldeborough STILL refuse to erect a statue of him because of his sexuality. Little do they realise that without Britten's putting Alborough on the map many of them would not have a thriving tourism and bed and breakfast income. Norwikian 09:07, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I'm questioning whether it's appropriate to have a "commentary" section such as this article has&mdash;it is proper to report critical commentary, but not for a wikipedia author to function as a critic himself. Someone familiar with this topic (not I) should review this section, though I think there are interesting observations/critiques in there. Postdlf 23:48, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Rewrite
OK I've done a fairly major rewrite, partly to meet the objections above and partly because I felt Britten deserves rather fuller treatment. The last paragraph may still need work, however (as may the whole thing) Wilus 17:03, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Anarchist?
I was surprised to see Britten categorised as an an anarchist. I would of thought he could only be described as such in a very metaphorical sense. Or am I missing something? Bluewave 11:46, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Hm, that seems weird to me as well. I read the Carpenter bio, and don't remember anything about anarchism. Since this comment was posted a long time ago, I'm going to remove the cat and see what happens. Mak emi 03:10, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't remember anything about him being an anarchist -- pacifist, definitely yes, but not anarchist. Maybe the person who added the category can provide a reference?  Antandrus  (talk) 16:02, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * It should be removed anyway unless supported in the article text; categories says that the reason for a cat should be obvious on going from the cat to the article. I suspect someone is over-reading Peter Grimes. Septentrionalis 20:41, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Works - explanation for deleting section
Recently an IP editor added a "Works" section - well, to be more accurate, the editor (presumably German-speaking) added a "Werke" section with various titles in German (e.g. "Serenade für Tenor, Horn und Streicher") see here. Some, but not all, of these German titles have been corrected or made to point to the correct article on the individual composition. However, there's already a better list at List of compositions by Benjamin Britten which is appropriately linked as a "See also" under "Music", we don't need a shorter list of key compositions as these are already mentioned at appropriate points in the text and I think that this section clutters up the article on Britten unnecessarily. So I'm boldly getting rid of it, but thought I would explain why here, in case anybody objects and wants to discuss. Bencherlite 09:37, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Pederast?
I query the addition of the "pederasts" category. Is it beyond dispute that "Britten's children" amounted to pederasty? --RobertG ♬ talk 11:51, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree. Terms like "pederast" and "pedophile" have strict scientific definitions that may include people like Britten. However, these words are laden with tabloid hysteria and even some dictionary definitions presume that pederasty is defined by particular sexual acts. Also the point of categories is surely to focus on the things that make a person notable: Britten is a world-famous composer, not a world-famous pederast! Bluewave 12:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Might it then be order for Britten to be removed from the category? Markjdb 02:21, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Done. Antandrus (talk) 02:42, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Surely if there is any evidence of this, it is noteworthy and worthy of such categorisation. No one has raised whether it is true or not. If untrue, then I agree it should not place the composer in a category such as Pederast or Pedophiles, but I would hate to see any cavilling at a fact, if it is a fact. Alpheus 11:08, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The guidelines on categories say "Unless it is self-evident and uncontroversial that something belongs in a category, it should not be put into a category." At the moment it is certainly not self-evident and uncontroversial (based on the content of the article). Bluewave 14:46, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * There was once a reference in the article to Britten's attraction to young boys, but it was removed anonymously some time ago. It read:
 * The role of Miles in the last named [The Turn of the Screw] was created by the twelve-year-old David Hemmings with whom Britten, always drawn to young boys, became infatuated. The use of the boy's voice as a symbol at once of innocence and temptation is a recurring motif in Britten's music.
 * There is information on this topic in the Carpenter biography and in Britten's Children. Wilus 13:05, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * OK then, there's two arguments here. Firstly, some of the facts from those books would have to be included in the article. Secondly, there is a judgement as to whether the facts amount to "pederasty". I've got 2 dictionaries on my shelves, both of which define pederasty in terms of "sodomy" and "sexual acts" between men and boys. I am pretty sure that neither the Carpenter biography (which from recollection is very cautious about the subject of Britten's relationships with boys) nor the "impeccably unsensational" Bridcutt book would support that suggestion. Bluewave 13:36, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand why this information was removed except that someone didn't like it. That's too bad! I wouldn't support calling Britten a "pederast" since he never seemed actually to have acted on his impulses. But his interest in young boys is a known fact of his life and should be restored to this article. And protected, if necessary.Ed (talk) 14:26, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Subjective description of style
"For many musicians, however, Britten's flawless technique, broad musical and human sympathies and ability to treat the most traditional of musical forms with freshness and originality places him near the head of composers of his generation."
 * Well, count me in as one of "those musicians", but this doesn't seem acceptable as a NPOV. Any other opinions? MarkBuckles (talk) 06:01, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I find the above an acceptable description of the current consensus on Britten the composer though I don't, at all, "love" his music which generally leaves me cold. No matter, just my opinion!Ed (talk) 14:48, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

No Photo?
It seems to me too odd that the article does not have any picture of him. I think there would a PD file in Britain/US even though he was dead in 1976. Could anyone know of where should hold such images (library archive, government, etc). --Caspian blue (talk) 05:05, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * British "official" photos tend to be under Crown Copyright. I suspect e wasn't well enough known when he was in the US at the start of WWII, although he was travelling with Auden, so it's possible there might be a PD photo of him from that era.  You can see where general archive holdings are, here:


 * It's quite possible someone out there has a photo they'd be willing to release as PD, but finding them is the tricky thing. David Underdown (talk) 09:17, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the information. US congress seems to have several PD files, but it is not accessible to the website. Before finding PD images from Britain websites, I guess I have to read the copyright law first. :) --Caspian blue (talk) 15:36, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Another alternative to locating usable pictures is to ask someone like the Britten-Pears Foundation to release one (or more) decent photos under an appropriately permissive license.  Magic ♪piano 15:30, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Composer project review
I've reviewed this article as part of the Composers project review of its B-class articles. This is a decent composer bio; I have few relatively minor issues with it, including the need to substantiate some peacock language. My full review is on the comments page; questions and comments should be left here or on my talk page.  Magic ♪piano 15:30, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Britten's Children
Added link to Britten's Children article. Anybody interested in Britten might want to view it. Seems like a fork to avoid integration of POV there into biographical article here. MacGilvennehy (talk) 02:08, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

St Cecilia's Day reference
I doubt that any encyclopaedic value is served by the reference to Britten's being born on the Feast of St Cecilia, patron saint of music, as there are thousands of Anglican and Roman Catholic saints, and many more famous people born on saints' days, but I imagine that any correlation is rarely if ever mentioned in any prestigious encyclopaedia. I won't remove, but unless there's strong support, after time I suggest that it should be. Alpheus 11:03, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I say keep the reference. It is relevant as he is composer and an interesting piece of trivia. I have read it in many other short biogs of Britten. --Richardbates2002 21:37, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * And he did write Hymn to Saint Cecilia, after all. One of the three reasons was the coincidence of his birthday on her feastday. --  JackofOz 23:55, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

He is referred to as the patron saint of music for this reason. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.102.232.49 (talk) 15:05, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Elephant in the Room
The Talk:Benjamin_Britten by OwenParamore, above, is cogent, accurate and devastating -- this article continually sidelines and skates around Britten's operatic corpus. There are no operas in the list of Britten's recordings for instance(!). That might be an easy area to address, but the blindness to opera is woven into the DNA of this article now, and difficult to tease out. The peacock terms highlighted by MagicPiano in the review don't help as they build up the non-operatic works, squeezing the available space for the operatic ones, and there's a lack of focus in some of the sections which would benefit from a restructuring. One thing that might help get a starting point of attack is to separate the Reception section into Musical reception and Personal reputation or some such term. Comments? A second idea might be to add the list of operas into the body of this article to give them a visibility which is currently sadly lacking. Perhaps, if the article can be rebalanced, the list could be removed later. Comments?

It's two years to the centenary ... we have a little time. Scarabocchio (talk) 08:45, 28 April 2011 (UTC)


 * changes log
 * This is a very quiet article (very little has happened since the article review in 2009), so I'm doubtful that asking for discussion here is the best way to co-operatively develop the article. I'm happy enough adding detail, but feel less comfortable removing text (something which should be done, however, to clarify context and develop the various narratives).  As I work through the article, making multiple changes, I'll log any material that I cut here for ease of access/ discussion/ re-instatement ... Scarabocchio (talk) 20:40, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Cut: "He was educated at Old Buckenham Hall School in Suffolk, an all-boys prep school, and Gresham's School, Holt." This concision was fine when the entire life to age 21 was in a single paragraph, but now that the text has expanded, it needs separating out and re-integrating (or discarding). The Gresham's School bit would need integrating into the part of his life (age 15-18) that is currently missing.
 * Cut, from Life/RCM: ... Ireland "with some input from Ralph Vaughan Williams". The phrase was added by an anonymous (IP) editor in September 2005, without a source reference. The involvement of Arthur Benjamin is well-documented, that of RVW is not.
 * Cut: "He studied both the piano and the viola; the piano was his only instrument as an adult, but the viola would play a significant role in many of his adult works. " We have now covered the facts of this earlier in the article, and are missing only the unsubstantiated claim of the importance of the viola in BB's later life.
 * Cut, from end of initial section: "In this same period he wrote Friday Afternoons, a collection of 14 songs mostly for unison singing, for the pupils of Clive House School, Prestatyn where Britten's brother, Robert, was headmaster.(ref)Oliver, p.217(/ref)". The "same period" refers to the period between "A Hymn to the Virgin (1930) and a set of choral variations A Boy was Born, written in 1934". I suggest that this is insufficiently notable, and not part of any narrative.
 * I think it's a pity to cut mention of the viola (perhaps the claim is over-stated, but the instrument does after all play a major role in that key passacaglia in Peter Grimes). However I would like to challenge the assumption that Friday Afternoons is "insufficiently notable". The set represents an early manifestation of Britten's gift for finding/creating melodies which lodge in the mind, in a manner which he fully exploited once he'd decided to return to England from the States; and as a set Friday Afternoons presents one of the earliest examples of his outstanding gift of writing for young performers music within their ability which yet draws out their musicality and enthusiasm for music-making in a way rarely equalled by any other composer - again something which presages later masterpieces, such as Noyes Fludde and relevant parts of Turn of the Screw and Midsummer Night's Dream. I am reinstating Friday Afternoons on that basis. Alfietucker (talk) 21:50, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Great! I welcome the response and the enthusiasm -- I was beginning to think that I was shouting into a void.  It will be even better when you get your reference books back and can flesh this out in the article itself! :-)  Scarabocchio (talk) 22:19, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Gay
I'm missing something about Britten's homosexuality. Is that on purpose?
 * What are you missing about it? Hyacinth 11:56, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * There is a reference to Peter Pears being his "life-partner", but that's about it as far as I can see. I think there's a case for saying a bit more - not to be prurient, but to point out that Britten and Pears were openly gay at a time when it was illegal in Britain to have male-male-sex.  They couldn't give a damn who knew about their love life.  This was a very advanced attitude for its time.  JackofOz 13:29, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I am not convinced that the latest edit serves any useful purpose. The consummation of their relationship is not relevant, I don't think. Thoughts, before I revert it? --Wspencer11 (talk to me...) 13:34, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree entirely with Wspencer11. It is one of the great musical romances, but this is as unencyclopedic as it would be to document where the Schumanns or the Messiaens consummated theirs.  Worse still, the addition is unreferenced.  --RobertG &#9836; talk 14:00, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Robert said it well. I think it should come out.  Antandrus  (talk) 15:48, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Although I admit that the term "life-partner" rubs me the wrong way. Mak (talk)  15:56, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I have rewritten the passage...speak up if it still needs work. --Wspencer11 (talk to me...) 16:10, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I think the issue is relevent if it can be shown to have had some influence on his work. Composers and their love lives are frequently referred to in various biographies. Take Wagner or Beethoven for example. Why should it be different for Britten? i think its important because it shows bravery and that he does not care what people think although it should only be a little bit. holly taylor Why is this aspect of his life not regarded as relevant? This is not about Britten's music. It's about Britten himself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shallaq (talk • contribs) 03:08, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It may be argued that Britten's sexuality is of extra interest because the recognition he received was "not, however, without considerable irony; many of Britten's greatest works were inspired by his long-time personal and professional relationship with his lover, tenor Peter Pears, and created within the context of a society in which homosexual acts were criminal."
 * Hyacinth (talk) 10:40, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I have removed my latest comment on Britten's paedophilia as it has been addressed elsewhere. I really don't understand the reason for the removal of the subject as it has long been written about in many reference works on the composer.71.247.199.98 (talk) 13:09, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Regarding Britten and Pears being 'openly gay', I think that's a slight exaggeration; we need to pay a little more attention to the way in which Britten and Pears actually behaved. For most of Britten's life, homosexual sex was indeed illegal and Britten didn't exactly give interviews in which he talked about him and Pears being an item. It's true that they didn't lie about their relationship, but neither did they talk openly about it in public, and there seems to have been a kind of conspiracy of silence on the part of their friends and the media not to out them to the press; I've read various articles and books about Britten published from the 40s to the 60s, and his personal life simply isn't mentioned, let alone that he was in a relationship with Pears. Britten's and Pears' close friends and acquaintances seem to have maintained a bit of a conspiracy of silence about it. (This was fairly typical for major cultural figures in mid 20th century Britain who were gay: for example, when John Gielgud was arrested for cottaging in a public toilet, it was kept off the front page because nobody wanted Gielgud to be ruined by a public scandal.) We should remember that Britten was regarded for much of his life as Britain's best living composer, and so it was in the interests of almost nobody to upset that by involving him in any kind of scandal. Britten also seems to have had some mixed feelings about his own sexuality, which come out in his music from time to time (e.g. Billy Budd, the Serenade for Tenor, Horn and Strings). As late as 1961, when Dudley Moore did a parody of Britten for Beyond the Fringe called Little Miss Britten, neither he nor the rest of the cast even knew that Britten was gay until after Moore had performed it, and then they were mortified because they realised that he'd be offended. Britten's gayness is a very complex and nuanced subject, and we shouldn't think that he was 'openly gay' in the way that, say, Harvey Fierstein is openly gay. I'm not saying that Britten and Pears weren't brave to live as they did, and anybody who knew them personally seems to have known perfectly well what the truth was, but they were not publicly gay in the way that people are these days; it was an open secret, and the establishment had invested too much in their success to not protect them. Having said that, when Britten died, the Queen sent Pears a telegram of condolence, and although she covered herself by addressing it to him on behalf of everyone who'd worked on Britten's music, Pears interpreted it, I think rightly, as an official acknowledgment that he was Britten's spouse. Lexo (talk) 23:39, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Commentary
This article is an excellent example of why Wikipedia is not a reliable source for information. I do not regard myself as an expert on Britten, but I am a doctoral student in music composition presently, and I have closely studied Britten’s music and his life. The facts stated in this article seem to be accurate—i.e., dates of works, and the chronology of Britten’s life, but reading this section one gets the impression that his major musical achievements were the Young Person’s Guide to the Orchestra, some choral pieces and the Nocturnal. These are in fact wonderful works, but Britten’s most important achievements were in the realm of vocal music, particularly opera. Touching upon Rejoice in the Lamb, A Hymn to the Virgin and the Church Parables is a step in the right direction, but much more consideration has to be given to the operas Peter Grimes, The Turn of the Screw, Albert Herring and, most importantly, Death in Venice. These were the works in which Britten made some of his greatest innovations, including the use of serial methods of composition (in The Turn of the Screw) and gamelan music (in Death in Venice). The operas must also be viewed in the broad historical context that there really was no English opera to speak of since Henry Purcell’s Dido and Aeneas of 1689. Scholarship is much more than simply getting facts right—it’s bringing up the right facts for the right reasons, and understanding them in a broader context (in this case, Western music history). It takes real scholars and teachers to do this, not any random person who can contribute anything he or she wants to this website, Wikipedia’s statements about “verifiable” information and “consensus” notwithstanding. To really learn about Britten, try starting with the Oxford Companion to Music or Baker’s Dictionary of Music and Musicians. The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians is regarded among scholars as the most authoritative reference source for music—hard-core stuff which assumes you have pretty good musical background already, but still an excellent source of information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by OwenParamore (talk • contribs) 21:11, 24 May 2007


 * I shifted the above comment over from the article page where it had been reverted to here. - Fordan (talk) 21:16, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Sounds like we have a volunteer. Roll up your sleeves and get stuck in, Owen, old boy :)) --Stephen Burnett 21:19, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes I appreciate the point Owen is trying to make. O if only the vulgar masses, the great unwashed would keep their filthy paws of this thing and put away their stupid aspirations that they might be a part of some truly great democratic project then the world would be a better place.!!
 * The "Music" section is frankly pretty bad, and has been for a long while, with random people adding random paragraphs on compositions they happen to know. It needs rewriting, by Owen or someone similarly qualified, and if no-one will step forward I suggest it simply be deleted. Wilus 12:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Cogent, accurate, devastating and unfortunately still accurate ... (rolls sleeves up) ... Scarabocchio (talk) 08:05, 28 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Not to mention the War Requiem, which was the work by Britten that was most highly regarded in his own lifetime. Lexo (talk) 23:41, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Table of contents
Moving the TOC to the left means that there is a lot of white space to its right, and I imagine that the TOC was located on the right to avoid that. --GuillaumeTell 11:22, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, and that's the intention—to distinguish the lede from the rest of the article. If the convention ever changes, I'll be in there pitching to right-align TOCs, but until that day, it's a convention universally adopted in WP articles. Cheers. GFHandel &#9836; 21:10, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Quite so. There must be hundreds of thousands of articles on Wikipedia with white space to the right of the TOC. What's so special about this one? Moving the TOC to the right simply makes it intrude on the section following the lede which, in my opinion, is just as bad as having that blank white space. Avoiding this intrusion on the following section is probably the reason the left-TOC template is designed as it is. On the other hand, I like what GuillaumeTell has done with the stained-glass window image, to try to fill some of the white space. A portrait of the composer would be better, but I expect finding a copyright-free image must be a problem or this would have been done long ago.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:23, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

References/footnotes
Two of the footnotes refer to Matthews, but there is no book with that author listed in Sources. Lindensong (talk) 02:52, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I've added the Matthews book in the Sources section. Would this help? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:18, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Burial site
When I went to Aldeburgh, Britten (and Pears, and Imogen Holst) were all buried in the churchyard of St Peter and Paul, and not in 'Aldeburgh cemetery' as stated here. The Wikipedia entry on Aldeburgh also says he is buried in the churchyard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.35.151.201 (talk) 07:37, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

FA push
Hello. I am thinking about expanding this article and nominating it for FA status and the goal is to have it put up as a TFA on 22 November 2013, the 100th anniversary of Britten's birth. Here are a couple of things we need to do: All are welcome to assist in this process. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 05:54, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Lead section - needs to be extensively rewritten
 * Biography - could use some expansion
 * Music - can be expanded upon with influences and reception section as well.
 * Memorials and legacy - can be added as well.
 * I'd love to help out with this. I don't know very much about Britten, but I can help with copyediting, article cleanup, etc – whatever is needed. I think a 100th anniversary TFA would be great. Focus (talk) 16:59, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * That sounds good to me. By the way, I am expanding the article in my sandbox. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 05:54, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Having got Stanford, Elgar and Walton to FA, and helping to do the same for Delius, I was thinking last year of trying the same with Britten, but I found it wasn't the right project for me. But I shall be glad to help in any way I can. I have access to the British Library, and so can access any published work by or about Britten if wanted. Please feel free to recruit me if I can be of any help. Tim Riley (talk) 00:10, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, and I would be honoured to have you help work on this project as well, Tim. I do have books about Britten from my local library and plan to use them for this article. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:52, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, you tell me what I can do and I'll do my damnedest. I shall not instigate anything unless you ask me to. Meanwhile I have a couple of dozen learned articles on Britten downloaded from JSTOR if you want them via email. Tim Riley (talk) 01:00, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Very well then. I think we should expand on the biography section and the lead should be re-written to include his history and legacy as well. Also, I do have a JSTOR account linked to my university, in fact. So far for the Biography section, I have expanded the early years and last years section to include details on his family background and circumstances on his death. I also think we should expand the music section to include his reputation and influences as well. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:07, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I met Peter Pears once, but never met Britten. I'll look at the article and come back with suggestions. Tim Riley (talk) 01:30, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Happy to help at a pre-FA peer review, for instance. I have the Carpenter biography and JSTOR access etc. Personally, I would leave the lead until last; I find it easier to write when the article as a whole is completed so that I know what's in (each section of) the article and can get a corresponding balance in the lead. BencherliteTalk 15:19, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Finally started work. More or less done the biog section to 1950-ish. More to come soonest. Tim riley (talk) 14:00, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Birth centenary
Is the centenary of his birth really not worth even a mention? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:18, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Good gracious! On the contrary. It is for that milestone that we agreed above to try to get the article up to FA. If we do the job properly we should have him on the front page on the day itself. I have undertaken to expand the biography part, and SJones23 will be concentrating more on the musical analysis. It goes without saying that other interested editors will be given the warmest welcome. Perhaps it might be simplest (on the biog side) if others give me a week or two to finish my contribution and then weigh in with any additions or queries. This approach worked pretty well with Gustav Holst recently upgraded to FA, but it's not for me to say. – Tim riley (talk) 16:12, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I was just a little surprised that the recent small addition about the centenary in general and the film in particular had been disgarded so quickly. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:22, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Aargh! Almost certainly my fault for preparing my first batch of additions offline, thus missing the latest additions to the live page. So sorry! I will make sure to mop these up before I finish. Sincere apologies. 16:29, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * And duly mopped. Tim riley (talk) 19:14, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Operas
Excellent job expanding the article. One quibble: The operas are named and blue-linked in the bio section, but I expected the sub-section about them in the "music" section to describe their musical style, or at least what the critics said about them. I suggest expanding that section to give a brief paragraph, or at least a few sentences, about each of the operas. All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:52, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * We are mid-way in the drive to get the article up to FA standard in time for the centenary in November. I have revised and expanded the life section, and Sjones23 has undertaken to do the same for the music section, which is at present exiguous, as you say. Tim riley (talk) 19:19, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Infobox
In view of the consensus that has developed against using popular music infoboxes on articles about composers I have moved this one here, for comments etc. -Kleinzach 04:23, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Personally, I'd welcome it. If only because the current lead image, in black and white, and at some distance, looks "a bit naked". But I understand that many editors see infoboxes as superfluous, and/or not needed for composers. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:03, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Nominated for Featured Article
The article is now nominated, here. I hope colleagues who have contributed above and at the peer review will have time and inclination to look in there. Tim riley (talk) 13:19, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Repeat links
Copied from my user talk page. Tim riley (talk) 18:41, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Morning Mr R, Just looking over Britten at FAC and I see there's quite a bit of overlinking in the Influences section. Is this deliberate, or are you happy for me to de-link the offending terms? Pip pip - SchroCat (talk) 07:51, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * For these enormous Life and Works articles there seems to be an unwritten understanding that it is helpful to the reader if the Works half is treated for the purpose of wikilinking almost as though it is a separate article: i.e. one starts from scratch, though common sense may dictate that a second link is not needed. For instance, it would be silly to link to a key figure like Pears at his first mention in the Music section. If you spot anything linked twice within either the Life half or the Music half please blitz, but one link from Life and one from Music is par for the course, I think. Tim riley (talk) 08:17, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Support that, it's helpful for someone interested in that section alone, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:19, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thought there might be a good reason behind it! I'll check for duplicates within the relevant sections then. Many thanks! - SchroCat (talk) 08:31, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Images of Britten
The article currently has two images of Benjamin Britten, both of which were uploaded under a free license. I was asked to review the images in preparation for FAC.


 * File:RIAN archive 25562 Mstislav Rostropovich and Benjamin Britten after a concert.jpg is used in the 1960s section and is clearly a free image (donated by RIAN, CC-BY-SA 3.0 license). If worse comes to worse, it would be possible to crop this to have just a head shot of Britten and use that as the lead image, while still using the original full image later in the article.


 * File:Benjamin Britten-Karsh.jpg is used as the lead image and is on Commons with a free license PD-Pre1964. The license is based on its publication in the book "Portraits of Greatness" with a publication date of 1960, whose copyright was not renewed as required by US law at the time (a search here does not find the book listed as having its copyright renewed under Yousuf Karsh or the title).


 * The problem with this is that the book's place of original publication is not clear (and the year appears to be 1959). Google books shows a 1959 edition which includes a photo of Britten here. A look at WorldCat shows editions of this book were published in 1959, 1960, and 1961 in Canada, the United States, the United Kingdom, and the Netherlands. I am unable to tell where the very first edition was published, and if that was outside the United States if it was then published in the US within 30 days of initial publication or not. Karsh was a Canadian citizen, so it seems possible that he might have had first publication in Canada.


 * Since Karsh was a foreign national, this may have exempted his books from the copyright renewal requirement according to this U Penn website. Even if this is not the case, the problem is that to claim the free license, we have to be able to prove initial publication in the US, or that it was published in the US less than 30 days after being published abroad - see Hirtle_chart. Another wrinkle is that on Commons a search on the website given above for renewal is not always seen as sufficient proof of failure to renew. I also know that many of Karsh's individual photos were published multiple times in different books, so it may be that the photo has copyright that way too.


 * So I am pretty sure this image is still under copyright. I note that Google books does not have this as a free book, nor does Project Gutenberg, nor are there other images from this book on Commons that I can find.


 * Another possibility. Publicity photos made without a copyright notice are often free. Here is one such image - if you want, I will upload it to Commons. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 13:15, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Huge thanks for your efforts on this: clearly, you have gone to a great deal of trouble and I am most grateful. Very glad indeed not to have taken a dodgy image to FAC and been shot down there. If you don't mind uploading the ebay image to Commons I shall be even more in your debt. Tim riley (talk) 14:01, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Here is the 1968 photo. I will copy my rationale above to the Karsh photo. It may be that the uploader has more information that will resolve the questions one way or the other, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 17:13, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * A very good image, although not what many would describe as a "strong" one? Does this have any bearing on the thorny issue of infoboxes (see above). To my mind the image looks a bit "naked". Martinevans123 (talk) 11:06, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * There are other "publicity photos" of Britten online, but I think it best if the photo show the front and back and have some evidence of being issued / used as a publicity photo to be able to make the claim. I do not think this has a bearing on Infoboxes. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 15:15, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Just wanted to note that File:Benjamin Britten-Karsh.jpg has been nominated for deletion on Commons. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 15:15, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Churchyard
Surprisingly difficult to find BB & PP in the churchyard, tho' we did, and took a photo. Talking of 'Imo' Holst, surely she must have been the candidate for a lavender marriage with Pears, alleged in the article as an idea - sounds like Britten at his most managing!

Rogersansom (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:39, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Possible photos to add
Congratulations on this article becoming FA!

I wonder if it would make sense to add two photos to the article, in sections that are currently devoid of images. My suggestions are to:
 * 1) add a photo of St. Peter and St Paul's Church, Aldeburgh (where Britten and Pears are buried) to the "Cause of death" subsection (in the "Controversies" section). I suppose this could also go in the "Last years" section, but that already has a text box (though no photo).
 * 2) add a photo of Snape Maltings concert hall to the "Legacy" subsection (in the "Music" section). There are three images that might work for Snape Maltings (sounds like it is a lost chapter from a Harry Potter novel), shown in the gallery below.

What does everyone else think? Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 15:35, 23 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I think the church building would look better with less road in the foreground. The interior of the hall is attractive, also for works performed there. Thank you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:41, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I would agree with both of those additions. There is a more cropped, but darker, version of the church at Commons. Of interest also may be an image at flickr, showing the very simple headstone on Britten's grave:, but it's "all rights reserved". Findagrave also has an image, of course, but people are rather touchy about linking to that site. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:56, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I added the Commons version of the church to the gallery above (as II) - version I has better lighting and could be cropped to remove much of the road in the foreground. I only looked at images which were already freely licensed, but perhaps someone could ask about changing the license on the grave image on Flickr. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 18:13, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you once again, Ruhrfisch. Your indefatigable search for free images is one of the wonders of Wikipedia. As a rule I prefer interior shots of halls to exterior, but with the Maltings one hesitates to say which is better. Shall we leave the gallery in place here for a day or two to give people time to view and express preferences? Tim riley (talk) 18:20, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I have now emailed flickr member Arno Drucker. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:23, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * His helpful reply: "I am pleased to give permission to use the headstone image for the Wikipedia article about Benjamin Britten and will appreciate your giving me the image credit. I would like to suggest other pictures which might be of interest - the picture of Peter Pears' grave and the picture of the Britten parables in St. Peter & St. Paul Aldeburgh Parish Church - both of which are also on my Flickr site: http://www.flickr.com/photos/adrucker/sets/72157624835380118/ There are other pictures of Snape Maltings and related pictures in Aldeburgh which might be of interest." Martinevans123 (talk) 17:34, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Followed by this: "As per your suggestion I have changed the permission on the Britten grave photo to "Attribution - Non Commercial". Please let me know if this will work for you - also please let me know if there are other photos from that set that might be helpful or useful for the Wikipedia article. I will be happy to make them available." Martinevans123 (talk) 22:07, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I think a photo of the grave would be great in the article. Unfortunately, for it to be freely licensed and usable here or on Commons, his picture has to be either CC-BY or CC-BY-SA (or Public Domain) - see here. I have seen people on Flickr upload a special smaller version of their photo and only license that version freely (if he does not want to freely license the original). I think the Pears grave would also be useful. I know there is already a photo of the Britten window on Commons and in the article. Would it be OK to add the concert hall interior photo to the article? That seems to be the preferred shot. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 14:49, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll ask Arno what he wants to do. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:14, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I saw the licenses on the grave photos of Britten and Pears had been changed, so I uploaded them to Commons and added them to their respective articles. I was not sure if there was consensus on the Snape Maltings photo to add. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 17:44, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, a good addition, I feel. Yes, I think consensus is for the internal image. I must say the quality of this article is now first class. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:49, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Arno writes: "I appreciate your patience. I have changed the permissions on both the Britten and Pears graves to (hopefully) be CC-BY-SA. If this is not correct I would appreciate your help in choosing the correct setting, as I am anxious to supply these and any other pictures you would like for the article. I have a great deal of respect for Wikipedia as well as appreciation for the many years I spent in Aldeburgh when my wife was the Vocal Consultant for the Britten-Pears Young Artist Programme. My pictures were taken during the approx. 12 years there." I think that's a very generous offer, as he has some great pictures. Perhaps we can encourage him to make a Wikipedia account and start editing! Martinevans123 (talk) 11:33, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * What a splendid offer! And it would indeed be excellent if Martin can persuade Arno to join us as a Wikipedia editor. Tim riley (talk) 12:38, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * My personal preferences would be a cropped version of the church photo I, and the interior view of the concert hall. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 19:01, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Are you concerned that cropping will change the aspect ratio? And/or that a new image will replace the original? Just a thought. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:04, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I uploaded a cropped version of I under a new name on Commons and added it to the gallery, above. Its aspect ratio is a little different, but it is actually "taller" (in terms of aspect ratio) than version II of the church photo . Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 20:27, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Looks very good, I think. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:43, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Me too. Tim riley (talk) 12:52, 24 July 2013 (UTC) [Later] And loud applause to Arno Drucker, and thanks to Martin for sorting that out. I'm away for a week from tomorrow, and in any case am no expert on the visual side of things, so may I duck out and leave the images in the hands of Ruhrfisch and Martin? Very happy to go along with whatever you decide. Tim riley (talk) 19:29, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * ... well, us two and an indeterminate number of equally entitled FA watchers and keepers, of course. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:50, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * That would be excellent, but in reality if I were to buy you a glass of this or a pint of that for every other editor who joins us in this discussion I don't think you'd go home drunk. Still, let us hope! Tim riley (talk) 21:13, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Cheers! Martinevans123 (talk) 21:20, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Superb! Tim riley (talk) 21:29, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

As a labourer in this vineyard I send warm thanks to other labourers, above for these excellent improvements. Tim riley (talk) 19:41, 27 July 2013 (UTC) I added the Snape Maltings Concert Hall photo to the article - feel free to change the caption of it or the grave image, or to move them, etc. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 02:33, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Drucker photos
I was looking through Arno Drucker's photos and found he has one of Eric Crozier and Nancy Evans and Mrs. Drucker (see here). Wikipedia has no free photos of either of them. If he would be willing to freely license that one, it would be used in at least those two articles (Evans currently has a fair use photo). It might be worth explaining to Mr. Drucker that the photo might well be cropped to focus on just Crozier and Evans (removing his wife). I was looking for a picture of the Red House, but did not see any there.

He also has a picture of Matthew Rose (bass) who has no wiki pic (see here). He also has photos of Ann Murray (also no pic here) (see here) and Malcolm Martineau [not the most flattering image here). Plus several pix of Robert Holl and Roger Vignoles (also no pic here). Plus good head shots of artists we only have stage shots of - see here for Ely Ameling and Michael Chance.

It would be useful if someone more knowledgeable than I looked through the photos and checked to see if there are any other gems like this there. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 16:42, 28 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I'll tell Arno what you've found (although if you have a flickr account you might prefer to do that yourself?) Seems like we have a bit of a musical image gold-mine here. I'm sure that Arno would be pleased to alter the copyright, although I guess he might want to ask the individuals concerned as a courtesy. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:57, 28 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I am on Flickr (same user name), and would be glad to contact him if you prefer. I am unfortunately quite busy at the moment, so it would likely take me a few days. Ruhrfisch <sub style="color:green;">&gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 04:04, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * No worries "fischy". Have flickr-ed him. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:49, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Hopefully he will be able to license more photos for use here. Ruhrfisch <sub style="color:green;">&gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 03:23, 30 July 2013 (UTC)


 * As a newbie I hope you will forgive any faux pas I may make. I am delighted that my pictures of the Britten and Pears graves were appropriate and used for their articles. I would like to suggest that mention be made on both sites about the Britten-Pears School which was built alongside the Snape Malting Concert Hall. There is a Wikipedia article about the Britten-Pears Orchestra, and there is an article about the Britten-Pears Young Artist Programme, but the article is minimal. There is a new book "Making Musicians" by Moira Bennett - A Personal History of the Britten-Pears School, The Bittern Press [I have address of the press] 2012) about the history of the school, which I feel should at least be included as a reference source in that article. There are numerous pictures (including many of Peter Pears), and other teachers as well as interior pictures of the recital hall and of course a history of the beginnings (official opening by Queen Elizabeth on 28 April 1979 - there is a picture). I contributed a few pictures, hence received the book but perhaps the other contributing photographers could be persuaded to make their pictures available. The school was very important, particularly to Pears, and has had and continues to have distinguished teachers and graduates (Matthew Rose is a graduate) - teachers included Yehudi Menuhin, Joan Sutherland, Galina Vishnevskaya, Elly Ameling, Roger Vignoles - both a graduate and master teacher, and many more.
 * I should also add that I will be pleased to make any photos that others might find appropriate, available as needed - including cutting my wife out of the pictures, if necessary.
 * ˜˜Glencliffe — Preceding unsigned comment added by Glencliffe (talk • contribs) 23:12, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Glencliffe, very glad that you have joined us. That sounds like a very good udea. I wonder what User: Tim riley and User:Brianboulton also think. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:23, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * How on earth did I overlook this throughout August! So sorry! Yes, I entirely concur. The question, I think, is how best to take these points forward. Meanwhile I send a warm welcome to Glencliffe. Tim riley (talk) 15:43, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

National Youth Choirs of Great Britain
I've cut the plug for the NYC's new CD of Britten choral music in the "Britten 100" section, as we need to be selective if that section isn't to become unwieldy, and quite frankly the CD is not an exceptional Britten event (unlike the other items listed in the article) but of greater significance for the choir. I've shunted relevant info over to the National Youth Choirs of Great Britain article where IMHO it belongs. Alfietucker (talk) 23:37, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Point taken. The whole section is going to be drastically pruned to a few sentences once the centenary revels are ended, and so I have taken the view "let 'em all come", but you're quite right of course Tim riley (talk) 09:02, 7 September 2013 (UTC).

Britten as conductor and pianist
Britten not only performed and recorded other people's work (Grainger, Elgar, Bach, Mozart, Schubert etc) either as conductor or as pianist, but was by all accounts exceptionally talented at both activities (unlike, say, Prokofiev in conducting, and Stravinsky in either). I don't think Britten's activities as either pianist or conductor should be made an "afterthought", particularly as they are not for either of these other composers. I have therefore reverted the edit which did so. (btw, I remember, having made my edit comment, that Prokofiev did in fact perform other people's music on the piano. Still, Britten was hardly any less a pianist to judge from his many recordings - arguably he was if anything a more polished performer who yet did not play quite as much as Prokofiev, who aspired to be a pianist-composer in the same class as Rachmaninoff, simply because he suffered terrible nerves and so always preferred playing for song recitals or in chamber music.) Alfietucker (talk) 08:23, 12 September 2013 (UTC)


 * In my view Britten was primarily a composer, although he certainly was a very fine pianist (e.g. his recording of Winterreise with Pears). As you've pointed out, this issue applies to other composers, so I've referred it to WP:CM see here.  Klein zach  08:35, 12 September 2013 (UTC)


 * There's no doubt at all that Britten was primarily a composer, which is why that activity is listed first. Though perhaps, given this logic, "pianist" should come second rather than after "conducting" - a fairly minor point, admittedly. Alfietucker (talk) 09:00, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Platonic?
We currently have three mentions on this Featured Article of how Britten's relationships were (or in one case, ceased to be) "platonic". If we mean non-sexual, or chaste, it might be better to say this as the repetition of "platonic" seems to grate a little bit. --John (talk) 10:45, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * This is rather a case of faute de mieux. I'm not wild about the word "platonic" at all, as it means different things to different people. The OED says of it, "Of love, affection, or friendship: intimate and affectionate but not sexual; spiritual rather than physical" – two definitions that are subtly but crucially different, especially as regards the third occurrence of the word in the article. I thought long about all three uses when writing the relevant passages, but could think of nothing better. "Chaste" sounds quaint and "non-sexual" lumpen. Three incidences of "platonic" in an article of more than 16,000 words is not excessive, I think, and the PR and FAC reviewers evidently concur, as none have objected. Failing any better wording I am inclined to leave the sentences as drawn. – Tim riley (talk) 11:41, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Let's focus on the second one: "Their relationship ceased to be platonic, and from then until Britten's death they were partners in both their professional and personal lives"; could we say something (without getting too icky) like "Their relationship became a sexual one, ..." or "They consummated their relationship, ..."? Could we also pipe-link the first instance to Platonic love? It's not that great an article but it might make it easier for those unsure what the term means. --John (talk) 12:28, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I think John's second option re the relationship sentence is a good possibility, possibly reworded as "Britten and Pears consummated their relationship..." to aid readability, given the present context of the sentence. Alfietucker (talk) 12:31, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * In fact the second of John's suggested phrases is the one used (as I recall) in many of the sources. It seems just a touch twee to me, but I'm quite happy to go along with the consensus on this. I think this page has a few other watchers, and comments are cordially invited on the point. Tim riley (talk) 12:37, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

When shall we three meet again?
If nobody else has commented by, say, teatime tomorrow GMT, shall we go ahead and adopt the "consummated" wording, above? Tim riley (talk) 16:35, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Fine by me. Alfietucker (talk) 16:42, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok. --John (talk) 16:58, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Done. Also removed good-faith addition of obscure 1962 work out of chronological sequence and mucking up the flow of the prose. Tim riley (talk) 18:10, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Britten's brother
The following;

//he was an outstandingly musical child, unlike his sisters, who inherited their father's indifference to music, or his brother, who was musically talented but interested only in ragtime//

was improperly reverted without reason. I modified it so that it would not effectively say (as it now does again) "he was musical, unlike his brother who was musical". Note that no source is given for the contention, which is even then ill-expressed, that, in early childhood, BB was "outstandingly (talented)" whereas his brother was merely "talented". Hence the sentence tends to suggest an editorial preference for classical music over ragtime merely. There was no such obvious problem with the edit I made. Please add suitable references or rephrase. Redheylin (talk) 23:24, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The version as it stands seems clear enough to me, as it did, one assumes, to the numerous peer reviewers and reviewers at FAC who were happy with it. The revised text proposed in your drive-by change seemed no improvement, IMHO - indeed, quite the opposite. But thank you for your interest in the article. Tim riley (talk) 23:29, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Please note that the top of this page says, "Benjamin Britten is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so." I liked Redheylin's change. Toccata quarta (talk) 23:32, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Naturally a FA is not frozen for all eternity. If there is a consensus that the recent change is an improvement nobody, I am sure, will object. I don't think it flows at all well as prose, but if other colleagues take a different view so be it. Tim riley (talk) 23:54, 21 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Tim riley - please strike your phrase "drive-by" - I am a long-standing editor and professional writer who has made thousands of edits on musical articles, including many substantial contributions. Your remark, coupled with the fact that you reverted without consensus and without giving a reason even when asked for one here, is unacceptable in terms of etiquette and apparent claims of page-ownership. Redheylin (talk) 01:19, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Your (good faith, I am sure) edit bore no reason other than "tweak" if I recall. Mine explained that I was reverting to the agreed FA version. Tim riley (talk) 11:12, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * With the greatest respect for Tim (and this is not just the usual formula), I do see Redheylin's point about the wording, and agree with Toccata quarta that Redheylin's suggested alternative works (and, I think, is very readable). Alfietucker (talk) 08:58, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * p.s. I originally wrote this in the past tense, but see that Redheylin has since reinstated his/her wording. Alfietucker (talk) 08:58, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Alfie, whatever one thinks of the above one-off edit (which evidently has a consensus, and so be it) we must brace ourselves for God knows what in the next twenty-four hours. It's TFA, Heaven help us! Fasten your seatbelt and stand by with the green-ink eradicator over the weekend. Following Brian B's wise advice I generally wait till the Hosts of Philistia have moved on to later TFAs before attempting to clear up after them, though some valiant colleagues like Gerda try to hold the bridge then and there. Up to you, natch, but I propose to hide under the duvet till Britten is no longer a target on the front page. Tim riley (talk) 11:12, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Timing
Well done on getting this through FAC in time for the 100th anniversary of his birth. Nice work! --Coemgenus (talk) 13:52, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * On behalf of co-nominator user:Brianboulton and me, many thanks for that. We were fortunate in having a lot of help from many Wiki-colleagues along the way. Tim riley (talk) 16:43, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Two Lowestoft pics?
The added image of the Britten home is excellent, but two Lowestoft pictures is surely excessive, and the text looks crowded. I'm inclined to delete the boats and keep the house, but others may feel differently. Brianboulton (talk) 09:57, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm with you. I wanted a picture of the house, but couldn't find one and settled on the boats for want of anything better. Tim riley (talk) 10:02, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree that should keep the house picture and can do without the boats. Alfietucker (talk) 10:10, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Boats duly sunk. Brianboulton (talk) 17:14, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Mopping up after TFA
I don't know if this is the most efficient way of linking to the differences that remain (after valiant patrolling by Gerda, Alfie and others) between the article we posted on 22 November and the one that emerged on the other end, but I invite comments on what we should and shouldn't keep now that the visiting swarms have moved on. My own thoughts are: Thanks to the tender loving care of the article by its noble defenders in the last 48 hours there is surprisingly little to review. But comments from contributors to the article and anyone else who is interested will be gratefully read by Tim riley (talk) 20:29, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * A Boy Was/was Born. Agree, and Gerda is ahead of us in any event
 * Addition of Ferrier and Vyvyan – hard to argue with
 * Change of image – agreed already, above
 * Repetition of birth date – I don't boggle, but is it helpful?
 * Mother's maiden name – mea culpa, and I have thanked the editor who corrected this
 * …while his brother… - "while" misused as an synonym for "but" or "though" is like fingernails on a blackboard to me
 * Repetition of his peerage in honours section – pointless, me judice
 * conservatoires changed to conservatories – the latter makes me think of double-glazing salesmen, but what do others think?


 * Leaving aside the non-contentious amends already identified by Tim:
 * Repetition of birth date – I think it might have a bit more point if it's mentioned in the biographical article that (in the UK, at least) it is celebrated as St Cecilia's day.
 * Just so! Idiotic of me to have overlooked this. Would you care to add the appropriate wording, or shall I? Tim riley (talk) 21:32, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Not at all idiotic - a detail easily overlooked when there's so much to consider. Alfietucker (talk) 21:41, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * …while his brother… - I don't think "while" in this context is being used as an synonym for "but" or "though"; rather, as I read it, it follows from "unlike his sisters" - i.e. implicitly "while his brother [unlike his sisters]...". Still, would it be improved by wording it "To Edith Britten's great delight he was an outstandingly musical child, unlike his sisters, who inherited their father's indifference to music, while his brother, though musically talented, was interested only in ragtime."?
 * Jake with me. Unless anyone demurs in the next 48 hours or so I suggest you do the honours accordingly. Tim riley (talk) 21:32, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Repetition of his peerage in honours section – seems logical if we're going to list 'em.
 * conservatoires changed to conservatories – really not bothered (I guess I'm used to conservatories from Russian musical history).
 * Very happy to have done/continue to do my part watching the article: Britten, and the good work of Brian and Tim, deserves as much. Alfietucker (talk) 21:04, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The day on the Main page was fine, no major problems, QAI has seen worse ;) - A Boy was Born - nice pun that day - is planned to be shown for Christmas, additions welcome. I suggest to use its main sources - the thematic catalogue and the Spicer comments - for other Britten works. I started with The Company of Heaven, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:29, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Upper and lower case
This was very good work all round, and I can say this as an outsider, since I stayed well away from meddling in what was obviously a very busy project with sufficient hands on deck. However, I have a question concerning "A Boy Was/was Born. Agree, and Gerda is ahead of us in any event". I cannot find this discussion. Could someone point me to it? I notice that the stand-alone article on this piece was only just created on 22 November, but this comment looks as if there has been some debate about capitalization of the title, at least here in the main composer article. There should have been no need, since MOS:CT is unambiguous: It says to capitalize "Every verb, including forms of to be (Be, Am, Is, Are, Was, Were, Been)". Cross-checking Hart's Rules (now incorporated into the New Oxford Style Manual) and the Chicago Manual of Style simply confirms this practice, except of course when sentence case is adopted, as is sometimes done for song titles which are actually the opening line of the song text (in which case the word "born" should not be capitalized here). With all due respect to Gerda, whose work on Wikipedia is second to none, the lowercase "was" makes the title look like it is following German, rather than English rules. I also notice that the section titles for the variations, given in a table in the article, are inconsistent in this regard: "A Christmas Carol" is given in what the New Oxford Style Manual calls "maximal capitalization" style, whereas "Jesu, as Thou art our saviour", "In the bleak midwinter", and others are in sentence case.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:23, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I have taken the liberty of moving this important contribution to its own section. I think we should all look into the point about capitalisation and comment here. Faites vos jeux! Tim riley (talk) 22:47, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * MOS:QUOTE covers this. Toccata quarta (talk) 08:55, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I must admit I didn't know what the MoS says about verbs in titles, and am grateful to Jerome for this steer. I think (but how hard it is to be sure of one's own customary practice when one suddenly tries to recall it!) I am by habit a lower-caser of "was" in such cases, but of course I'm happy to comply with the MoS in diesen heil'gen Hallen. Tim riley (talk) 14:40, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I said on the talk where a move is requested from the published title to "our" style, that I believe in respect for the author's wish, and that we should change our rules if they are against it. Opinions there, please, also on B's other work Nocturnal after John Dowland, and the MOS discussion. (Freedom for the thought that we hate) - About the Sarastro quote: I learned (the hard way) that a lot is not "holy" in these "halls" ;) - "Rache" (revenge) seems often to translate to grudge, and we lose people over it (no more smile), --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:08, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I made a reference to MOS:QUOTE to point out that, unless there is a good reason for not doing so, the title of a piece should be reproduced faithfully, even if it is incorrect. Then there is WP:UCN, which applies to article titles. Toccata quarta (talk) 16:19, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I thought you were directing attention to this sentence in MOS:QUOTE: "A quotation is not a facsimile, and in most cases it is not desirable to duplicate the original formatting. Formatting and other purely typographical elements of quoted text should be adapted to English Wikipedia's conventions without comment; this practice is universal among publishers." In practice, I do see authors frequently assuming that all words (except proper nouns) of three letters or less should be lowercase in titles. I do not, however, find any sanction for this in style manuals, including Wikipedia's. The New Oxford Style Manual mentions the fact that title-page typography frequently presents titles in FULL CAPS, as an example of what not to retain when citing work titles. Occasionally (for example in Universal Edition scores) one encounters the opposite: all-lowercase. Such features are regarded as publishers' style choices, not to be adhered to slavishly. This is what MOS:QUOTE is aimed at, it seems to me.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:52, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Does capitalisation actually fall into the realm of "Formatting and other purely typographical elements"? Toccata quarta (talk) 17:57, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes. The quotation from your cited source, MOS:QUOTE, which I gave above (the one ending "this practice is universal among publishers"), continues: "These are alterations which make no difference when the text is read aloud". The New Oxford Style Manual passage already alluded to above reads verbatim: "The capitalization of work titles is a matter for editorial convention; there is no need to follow the style of title pages (many of which present titles in full capitals)."—Jerome Kohl (talk) 00:18, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * "In A Boy was Born, the lowercase "was" is what is published and performed and mentioned in books: a recognizable common title. I had asked Tim riley before I created, got no answer and followed that premise. There was a parallel discussion before on Talk:Nocturnal after John Dowland. If we don't have a rule for using the common title, speaking about style only in case where we don't have one, we should think about creating it. I just reverted musikFabrik from musicfabrik. A name is a name, no? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:24, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Sexual preferences
I too find it curious that there is no simple and clear statement that Britten was gay and that he had a long-term same-sex relationship. One would expect this to appear in a section on "Personal life" which is notable by its absence. A source such as this is interesting as it mentions both Britten's "infatuations with adolescent boys" and the reputed fact (also found in many other sources) that he was "raped by a master at his school". Thanks to Alden, this aspect of Britten's personality has informed a whole re-interpretation of one of his major works. Or is it just directorial sensationalism? 109.153.201.140 (talk) 21:59, 3 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree that more needs to be said. There are paradoxes about his sexual identity, and more than one.  He seemed to lead a charmed life, for a gay figure of his time.  His sexuality was clear because his partner was a man, and at the same time his attraction to boys was obvious in his work.  Talk of revelations of this kind after his death is silly - it was obvious to me in the 60s, and I could hardly have been less of a musical insider.  And that was well before "Death In Venice".  And then of course he had a most successful and productive "life partnership" with someone who could hardly have been less boyish!  Someone above put it well, that the Establishment had too much invested in him to let anything come out.  But it didn't always work like that - was Gielgud really kept off the front page, incidentally?  What did people think and say in private?  If artistic people were inclined to send up Britten on the subject of boys (Charles Mackerras had a story), what did - for instance - Mayors of Aldeburgh of older generations, who had to defer to him, think?  Of course reasonable people pre-1967 kept shtum because the law was an ass and individuals needed to be protected.  But what about since then, when the wind changed, producing a complete chasm in accepted attitudes towards adult homosexuality on the one hand, and boy love on the other?  Britten, who was 'bi-sexual' in this regard, seems posthumously to continue pretty much his 'protected reputation'.  There are fascinating issues to be explored. Rogersansom (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 14:47, 26 June 2012 (UTC)


 * So what exactly IS the evidence for Britten's presumed *sexual* interest in boys? As far as the available information goes, Britten had a homosexual relationship with at least one adult man, but never any sexual relationships with boys nor evident inclinations of that sort in his life. Yes, there is ample evidence that Britten enjoyed social contacts with a number of boys. Yet to conclude that he 'must have been' sexually attracted to them or aroused by them is only in the eye of the beholder. Such interpretion is not substantiated by fact and thus should not be part of this lemma.Mcouzijn (talk) 21:27, 6 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I'd like to add one more vote that this needs to be addressed in the article. As is, there's a tag on the page for "Gay Musicians", but the text has no clear statement. As a user simply trying to learn about who Britten was, this is relevant information, even if it was never formally confirmed. I hope the Britten fans and scholars can improve this article in this way. --jrgsf

Controversies?
If he never actually did anything sexual with young boys, and if he was examined and found not to have syphilis, how are these things "controversies"? Sound more like unsubstantiated rumors and/or innuendo, to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.95.43.249 (talk) 21:23, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 14:21, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

English/British
Copied from my user talk page because I think the points raised are well worth setting out here:


 * Did [Britten] really long for England or did he just long for his native land (Britain)? Is it not more likely that he said "England" when he really meant "Britain" (as English people tend to do? Deb (talk) 18:09, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for looking in at the Britten article, but to explain: if, for example, the text was about a Scottish composer would you be insisting that he wanted to get home to Britain rather than Scotland? Unlike, e.g., Bax among his contemporaries, Britten never exhibited the slightest interest in or affection for the Celtic Fringe. There's a rather good explanation of the relevant distinction in the lead of the Celtic nations article. If you read the Britten article carefully you will see that it was England that called BB. The lure of the Passport Office is not, you may on reflection agree, all that seductive.  Tim riley  talk    08:10, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not arguing that he didn't return to England, or that he didn't particularly want to return to England, and I take your point about my use of the word "nation". However, what I'm saying is that it would be valid to use "Return to England" as a heading if he was returning from another part of the UK rather than from overseas, but that he didn't specifically return to England.  I daresay if his ship had landed in Fishguard, he wouldn't have refused to get off.  If there is evidence that he felt the specific pull of England rather than of Britain, I don't see it in the article.  In fact, the article is peppered with the use of the word "England" where the UK or Britain is clearly meant, and alternates with the use of the word "Britain" as if they were one and the same. I realise that this is commonplace (normally due to ignorance) and that it works both ways, but it is still worth thinking about. Deb (talk) 09:39, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
 * You may have perhaps missed the mention of Crabbe. In a way even "England", let alone "Britain" or "Europe", is arguably too unspecific: it was Suffolk, as in Crabbe, that really drew him back. I don't think we say "England" anywhere in the article where Scotland, Northern Ireland or Wales are involved. I mean, Lowestoft is on the British coast, of course, but "English" coast is surely preferable? I recently ran across a reference in The Times from the 19th century to "the whole of England, from Land's End to John o'Groats", which really is an abuse of the term. I was genuinely shocked.  Tim riley  talk    10:45, 14 June 2014 (UTC)