Talk:Enrique Granados

Granados' Death
My understanding is that Granados himself was saved (on a lifeboat, presumably). Then he saw his wife, jumped in, and drowned. That fact (if it is, indeed, a fact -- I'm going by memory here) makes the irony doubly potent. Here he was, afraid of the water -- then the ship is torpedoed, then he's saved, only to see Amparo in the water. Granados's music is so utterly Romantic that I have always felt that this story, utterly Romantic in itself, is very pertinent. (Normally a composer's death has little relevancy to his or her music.) Anyhow, just a thought. LorenzoPerosi1898 09:57, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


 * That's more or less the way it is in the article: he was in the lifeboat, saw Amparo, and despite his morbid fear of the water, jumped in anyway -- and they both drowned.  I've read several variants on the story, and it's haunting indeed.  Feel free to add/rewrite.  I wonder if there's a decent biography of him in English?  Maybe there's something citeable about his manner of death in relation to his musical style.  I think he's a much underrated composer, but that's just my POV.  Antandrus  (talk) 15:08, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

i think his vals sentimental no. 6 from valses poetico is a beautifully appropriate soundtrack to this sad affair, which unfortunately occurred on my birthday. Karynlyn 04:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * That's an exquisitely beautiful piece; I've played it. You're right. Antandrus  (talk) 04:13, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Names of Danzas Españolas
I have given alternative names for some of them (which are the names in any edition I have seen, except that in the cases of nos. 5 and 6, both names are used). In these editions, nos. 11 and 12 are given as "Zambra" and "Arabesca." Are they given in a different order here (intentionally or not) or is "my" "Zambra" "your" "Arabesca" and "my" "Arabesca" "your" "Bolero"? Kostaki mou 05:03, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Enrique Granados y Campiña
All serious sources I have found in spanish and catalan, refer to him as "Enrique Granados y Campiña", where enrique is his given name,  Granados his first surname, and Campiña his second surname. Adding Pantaleon or Costanzo is totally confusing, and I am surprised no one detected it before. --Jordiferrer (talk) 16:08, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Here you have serious sources:  Enrique Granados (Britannica) and  Enric Granados i Campiña (Catalan Enciclopedia) --Jordiferrer (talk) 16:22, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Name
I think that it's a shame that you had put Enrique. His name was Enric because you must say it in Catalan, not in Spanish. He was Catalan, and natonalist, so please change it as it offers a more realist point of view. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.169.168.132 (talk) 21:14, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Read his diaries and see that he was not nationalist. And, after all, his father was cuban and his mother from Cantabria. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.33.105.173 (talk) 09:21, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Spanish or Catalan
Should Granados be described Spanish or Catalan? Do we have sources? Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:47, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * This is a long debate existing in several wikis. Obviously in Catalan wikipedia he is described as a Catalan. In Spanish Wiki is described as a Spanish, and in other wikis...it depends. When people thinks about Catalan as a region in Spain they say Spanish, but when they think as a Cultural group they say Catalan. It also happens in dozens of other biographies of Catalan people in Wikipedia. Putting only Spanish may be considered offensive for us and puttin only Catalan maybe considered radical or biased by some editors. I've seen these discussion in many articles, and is usually solved using the term "Catalan Spanish", similar to "French Canadian". I would like just "Catalan", but that's my personal opinion, and I understand Catalan Spanish should be understandable for almost everyone in the world. As I told, this is a wider topic. Is not only the origin: We call him "Enric" (Catalan) instead of "Enrique" (Spanish). You can read a long similar discussion in Pau Casals talk page. You can find references and bibliography calling him Spanish / Catalan, Enric and Enrique, so you can reference both cases-> Wikipedia doesn't solve the real-world problems, just reflects it. Hope it helped and would be happy to help in any other cases. What do you think?--Kippelboy (talk) 19:44, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your open and even-handed response. I hope I have reflected it's balance in the changes I have just made to the article (I've put his Catalan name in the infobox, but a bug is preventing it from displaying. I've reported that, too). Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:31, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * He himself signed his letters "Enric" or "Enrique" depending if the correspondant was a Spanish or a Catalan speaker. Often, he used a neutral "E. Granados". In concert bills, the use of Catalan or Spanish forms depended on the place where he was performing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bocachete (talk • contribs) 16:47, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The correct answer seems clearly to put the Catalan name first with the Spanish translation, since that's the language he used locally. When I arrived he was only described as 'Spanish', which is clearly incorrect by omission. I replaced it with 'from Catalonia, Spain' and put in his Catalan name since at the least he was known by that name. Dunno if you get notifications on this page, but I would advise keeping an eye on it. I notice articles about Ireland usually reflect local sensibilities, it seems there aren't enough Catalans on here to defend themselves. (unfortunately they are completely overwhelmed on the Spanish wiki). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.171.152.153 (talk) 11:31, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Infobox on this article
See the discussion here. -- Klein zach  01:47, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * For the record, I think this article would be better without an infobox. -- Klein zach  08:57, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Of course you do. Why do you even bother to state what everyone already knows? ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 13:30, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion there is of no import. Such matters should be discussed here. Meanwhile, the infobox, which has been in the article since 2010, should be restored. And it should be kept. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:06, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * PigsOnTheWing, I have on my shelf several reference books with pencil markings in the margin, noting material that could be used to improve articles. Instead of dealing with these, I'm spending my WP time dealing with stupid controversies of which you are the principal driving force. And of course I am just one editor -- you're wasting everybody else's time too. This is setting back the cause. Why not clean up your act? Opus33 (talk) 16:39, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * oPuS33, I have on my shelf several reference books with material that could be used to improve articles. Instead of dealing with these, I'm spending my WP time dealing with the stupid systematic removal of infoboxes, contrary to the RfC instigated by members of the classical music projects, which found that "Infoboxes are not to be... removed systematically from articles. Such actions would be considered disruptive", of which you are a principal driving force. And of course I am just one editor -- you're wasting everybody else's time too. This is setting back the cause. Why not clean up your act?  Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:06, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Well Opus, why aren't you off dealing with those instead? No one is forcing you to engage in these discussions. If what you really want to do is improve articles, then go do it. We're all volunteers and YOU CHOSE to deal with the infobox issue. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 22:04, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Just restore the info-box has its been here for a long time. Long standing edit that was boldly removed has been contested - thus we  restore to stable version until the debate has run its course (this is common knowledge to all). So  that would mean in this case I am in favor of it being restored. Can someone sit down with Toccata quarta and explain the disputation he/she is causing by removing the boxes randomly from article they have nothing to do with. Its causing your project lots of trouble lately - does not look good .Moxy (talk) 17:49, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Some history: this article was started in 2004 and existed many years without a box. The box was first put here by an IP and reverted by me. Moxy (who as we know from recent statements never personally installs boxes) put the box back in 2010.

The box was never appropriate because it concentrated on personal details (some of them quite trivial) rather than his achievements in music. I doubt if there was ever a real consensus for it, but in any case consensus can change. There are now at least three involved editors here who are against having an infobox. If the 3Ms team (of Mabbett, Moxy and Melodia) want to have a box they need to produce some reasoned arguments to convince other editors to change their minds. But the edit warring, , , , must stop.  Klein zach  01:27, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Funny how your list of "edit war" diffs shows the restoration of the infobox, but not its systematic and repeated removal, citing WP:COMPOSER as a bogus justification, contrary to the RfC called by members of the classical music projects, which explicitly found that "Infoboxes are not to be... removed systematically from articles. Such actions would be considered disruptive." Since the removal is disputed, and there is clearly no convincing arguement, much less consensus,  for that change, we should go back to the status quo, since 2010, which is that the article has an infobox. Your comment that consensus can change is interesting, since elsewhere you oppose an infobox based on an unsubstantiated claim of "existing and ongoing consensus". Your allegation that other editors and I comprise a "team", is unwarranted and unacceptable.  Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:25, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * You got it I dont create or remove boxes - only reverted disruptive edits. As before there was no argument made for its removal - the same as now. At  some point we are going to need you guys to try and work with the community in a productive manner.  Get a hold of your rouge editor  before the projects loses the last bit of respect it has. If you want to convince people the boxs is no good here - you  will have to talk about the box and not the editors. Moxy (talk) 15:28, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Infobox: The problem of undue emphasis
The problem of the former infobox was its inclusion of unimportant details — the subject’s houses residences, spouse, children and parents — unconnected to his importance as a composer. Most of the rest of the box provided information about how he died! Only ‘‘one’‘ line in the box was about his music — the actual thing for which he was notable!

This box was an example of how bio-infoboxes can turn into collections of trivia. Please see WP:UNDUE for an explanation of this policy. -- Klein zach  15:59, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:UNDUE says nothing about this, nor about infoboxes at all. Any supposed errors in the infobox can be fixed, if there is consensus to do so, without its removal. There are no houses mentioned in the infobox under discussion. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:16, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

The Wikipedia policy WP:UNDUE is very clear. "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. "WP:UNDUE "applies not only to article text, but to images, wikilinks, external links, categories, and all other material as well." So the infobox, which is a summary of the article, should not emphasize obscure facts (trivia) that are not essential to the article. -- Klein zach  10:34, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok so a trimmed down version would be ok to you? as now seen on the left?Moxy (talk) 18:24, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I can't speak for other editors, but if the third and fourth fields were removed, I couldn't object to the box. (Though I'd still prefer no box at all.)  Klein zach  01:38, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Hello Moxy, having just birth and death is not so bad, but an infobox with just those two fields will be an open attractant to editors who will fill it up with trivia again. I know this from experience, back when when I once tried to deploy such pared-down infoboxes myself.  The result (massive trivia additions) was so discouraging that it led me to my current view that it's really best just not to have composer infoboxes at all.  Thanks for asking, though.  Opus33 (talk) 02:34, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The 'danger' of other editors adding bad content is emphatically NOT a reason to avoid something in the first place. So your argument is pretty much invalid. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 06:47, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, indeed. Opus33 explains the maintenance problem. That's why I'd still prefer no box.  Klein zach  03:28, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Enrique Granados. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050306063111/http://www.rprf.org/Rollography.html to http://www.rprf.org/Rollography.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:14, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Enrique Granados. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081017083952/http://www.lamadeguido.com/guidohistoric.html to http://www.lamadeguido.com/guidohistoric.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:48, 21 September 2017 (UTC)