Talk:Francis Poulenc/Archive 1

Discussion of Poulenc's first name
For once and for all, his name is FRANCIS. "Francis" (pronounced "fra(n)-SEES") is a legitimate French form of the name "Francis" (though the more common form is "Francois"). Anglicization has nothing to do with it; "Francis" is simply a more literal rendering of the Latin "Franciscus". - MD

I'm not sure where this idea that Poulenc's first name was "Francois" comes from. It's possible he was born "Francois", I suppose, but I've never heard him called that, and he's universally known as "Francis". --Camembert

He was born Francois and in all FRENCH documents, letters, compositions, death certificates etc, he is French by birth and name. I resent people who don't bother to create a new article such as I did for Les Six and four of its members not alreadfy on Wikipedia but who then flip here and there, imposing their ideas on subjects they obviously know nothing about otherwise one would assume they would have written the article themselves....DW


 * Honestly, I don't know what you are talking about. This "idea" that Poulenc was called "Francis" is not mine - it's what he is always called. If you search Google for "Francis Poulenc" you get 30,200 hits, if you search for "Francois Poulenc" you get 164. The Grove, Oxford and Penguin dictionaries of music all list his as "Francis", and I should think every other dictionary is the same. If he was born "Francois", then fine, mention that in the article, but don't refer to him as that, because nobody knows him by that name. Please don't move the article back to "Francois" without a good reason for doing so. --Camembert

See also these French sites which use the spelling "Francis":
 * http://mac-texier.ircam.fr/textes/c00001732/
 * http://www.radiofrance.fr/chaines/france-musiques/biographies/fiche.php?numero=233


 * The Oxford Companion sayd "Francis" too. DW -- Camembert is currently the driving force behind articles on composers and music theory, and the music area of Wikipedia have drastically improved since his arrival, so look around before saying "flip here and there, imposing their ideas on subjects they obviously know nothing about". -- Tarquin 15:33 Nov 7, 2002 (UTC)

Might tend to disagree as to the driving force behind articles on composers. Some people just don't take credit. But, I congratulate you both on the wonderful, exhaustive, interesting, and informative research on Darius Milhaud. What a pile of lazy crap. But you have time to run around and impose ideas on others. The problem folks, is that on the INTERNET the VAST, VAST, VAST amount of articles has been created in English, particularly by Americans who never use anyones proper birth name but the comfortable English one. My God, that snake in Francois is too difficult. Same thing applies for ENGLISH publications. Perhaps we should stop imposing and insulting other nations by showing respect and learning to spell their names their way. However, I could use an expert (anyone who refers to Google counts as an authentic measurement of anything, borders on moronic) as I just posted Jane Bathori but (showing respect and aiding tourists and interested parties) am not absolutely 100% sure which of the four major Paris Cemeteries she is in....DW

Guess I'd better go fix the improper article spelling of Francis Mitterand.


 * please Mitterrand ! and Francois is an improper name. François is. And François and Francis are just as common right now.


 * DW, the above cited websites are both French - one of them is the site of IRCAM, which, as I'm sure you know, is one of the most important and respected musical institutions in Europe. They call him "Francis", and I also have several French editions of his music which have his name as "Francis" (none have "Francois"). So I'm not sure what there is to argue about to be honest. And, yes, the Milhaud article is not very good - please feel free to expand it yourself. --Camembert

DW, the debate on the anglicization of names is going on elsewhere. "Francis" is a name that is used in France. "Francis Cabrel", for example -- Tarquin

DW's point about "respect" does not fit the problem here. The issue is not about the anglicization of the name, laziness, and all that, but about what Poulenc's name really was, what he's known as, what is says on his music. Which is Francis. Unless you produce some evidence otherwise. Why did he call himself that? Dunno, maybe you should find out, it might be interesting.

The rant about other people's Milhaud contribution is clearly the product of someone who needs to work on their anger management, and get a grip on what this encyclopedia is and is not. If it's so awful, DW, why don't you improve it - not by fiddling with Poulenc's spelling but by writing something good about Milhaud? Anon.

Dear Anon: Who the hell do you think did the article on Les Six and then most of its members? Backtrack from whence Les Six came, to Montparnasse and check who did not only the page but 90% of the people, persons, and places named in it. Likwise, Montmartre, then the four major Paris Cemeteries and their permanent residents! Don't waste time arguing with me. I will win, but prefer to be left alone to make my contributions anon too.

I've removed the assertion that Poulenc was born "François " - today I looked at his entry in Grove, which is usually very good on this sort of thing, and it calls him "Francis Jean Marcel Poulenc" with no mention of "François". If DW or "somebody else" can give a specific source which shows he was born "François" then we can put it back in, but I've taken it out because I don't think it's true. --Camembert


 * My biographical dictionary agrees with you, if that's any help. Deb 17:34 27 May 2003 (UTC)


 * I've got here a totally French-language edition (Durand S.A.) of one of his pieces and the name throughout is Francis - as suggested many times above, if the French can't get it "right", who can? Francis it must be. 87.114.5.226 02:58, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Removed
I removed this sentence as it is preceded by, "Poulenc was homosexual." I have no idea at this point if the intent was friend or "friend". Hyacinth 00:51, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * "He was also a friend to the singer Pierre Bernac for whom he wrote many songs."
 * "He was also a friend to the singer Pierre Bernac for whom he wrote many songs." It's not clear whether this should be friend or "friend" and the information should be put back in, with the information that it is not clear whether or not this relationship was sexual, as this is a subject of discussion.  It would seem, from my own research, that it was something like a serious relationship, but clearly non-sexual, as both gentlemen said that things might have been simpler if they been attracted to each other, but that this was not the case.  Musikfabrik 08:44, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

This article is horrible
This is nothing but gossip about Poulenc's sex life. The musical analysis is simply horrible. Poulenc deserves better than this. A complete rewrite is in order! Musikfabrik 22:43, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

List of Works
One thing that's badly needed is a list of works with dates. The link to the category is no good--difficult to work with and doesn't allow for works that don't yet have an article associated. Dybryd 05:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * You're right about that. Look what we did with Germaine Tailleferre's article. I had all of the resources to do this for her.  Even including the references to works in Grove's would be helpful. Right now, it's simply not usuable. Musikfabrik 11:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I've started the list; Feel free to add to it! Musikfabrik 12:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I've started to rework what's already here
I've taken all of the People Magazine stuff and put it in a section entitled "Poulenc's charactor". I'd love to just AX it all, but I realize that some people might enjoy this stuff.

I then tried to rework what was already there into something that had a bit more substance. In order to complete this, I'd like to begin by reworking the article on Les Six which is almost as horrible as this article is and then bring some of the material which I'm going to add there over here too.

However, please don't hestitate to pitch in and clean this mess up! thanks in advance. Musikfabrik 12:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Freddy WHO?
Somebody added the first name "Freddy" in reference to the mother of Poulenc's supposed daughter, but no last name and no source; "Freddy" is obviously a nickname. Does anyone have the complete name and a source? Right now, this article is starting to read like the "National Enquirer"....Musikfabrik 12:06, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Benjamin Ivry's book (see References) names her simply as 'Frederique' in both the main text and the index. violaperson 10:29, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

IPA Pronunciation
The pronunciation of "Poulenc" is currently given as pulɛ̃k. If my understanding of IPA is correct, this would make the second syllable rhyme with "dreck". The prounciation I'm familiar with (and which also conforms better to my understanding of the French language) is more like "lank" with the "n" nasalized (I'm not sure how to do this in IPA, but I would guess something like lãk). Does anyone have a reference for the prounuciation? Grover cleveland 07:38, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The present symbol is correct. The tilde over the epsilon makes it a nasal vowel. Dybryd 08:32, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Er ... as it presently (2 June 07) stands, the article has pulenk as the supposed phonetic transcription, which is wrong in several ways. A rendering /pulɛ̃k/ as above, is correct in the sense that it's in keeping with standard practice for French phonetic transcription. The low front unrounded nasalized vowel of French (as in words like pain, foin, mince, fin etc.) in terms of cavity features is in fact phonetically closer to [æ] than [ɛ] (as in Grover cleveland's suggested comparison with English lank, above), but the French phonetic transcription practice is to use [ɛ]. Note, too, that as is often the case with names, the relationship between spelling and pronunciation is not in accord with the norm (which would imply /pulãk/). Alsihler 15:58, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Personal life contradiction
In the "Personal Life" section, reference is made to Poulenc's sensitivity to friends' untimely deaths, incuding "the death of painter Christian Bérard, who was decapitated in a car accident in the early 30's". However, the Christian Berard page lists his death "in 1949, on the stage of the Théâtre de Marigny". Which story is true? I would change the Poulenc bit, but this inconsistency leads me to doubt the veracity of the entire anecdote. Anyone got any insight? Spirit.question 20:10, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Similarly, the lines "First came the death of the young woman he had hoped to marry, Raymonde Linossier. [...] Then, in 1923" do not work. Raymonde Linossier, born in Lyon on March 25, 1897, died on January 30, 1930. (She was buried with the manuscript score of Les Biches in her arms.) Rc65 (talk) 04:44, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Choral works
Poulenc is an important 20th century composer of choral music. The Choir article even mentions several Poulenc works. It is remarkable that this isn't mentioned at all here. --UrbanGrill 20:32, 18 March 2007 (UTC) Edit: oh yes, Figure Humaine is mentioned among other works. But still. --UrbanGrill 20:35, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Sound files of music by Poulenc cannot be public domain
Poulenc died in 1963. According to current copyright law, all works which were published after 1923 are protected for at least 85 years. No works by Poulenc are currently in the public domain and therefore cannot be used in this project. Please do not readd these files to this article Gretab 23:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Opus numbers
What is the authority for the opus numbers assigned to the chamber music (but not the other categories) listed under 'Works'? As far as I am aware, neither Poulenc nor his publisher ever used them. violaperson 10:18, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Dada
"He embraced the Dada movement's techniques, creating melodies that would have been appropriate for Parisian music halls."

Something seems amiss with this Dada comment. My understanding of the Dada mvmt would have me believe that embracing the movement's "techniques" would in fact have the opposite effect of "creating melodies that would have been appropriate for Parisian music halls," as the Dada mvmt bore inappropriateness as a central tenet.

I've made a correction for the sake of what i'd claim is consistency, that his embrace of Dada techniques challenged public reception. If the opposite is in fact true, that he was publicly lauded, then perhaps he was NOT influenced by dada to begin with. Perhaps someone more informed with Poulenc's influences and reception could do the backgrounding on this small matter.

WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 03:21, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Changes reverted
There is a better version of this article at 22:53, 11 August 2011 - but somebody reverted it. That person did not seem particularly knowledgeable about Poulenc.


 * All material on Wikipedia must be reliably sourced. You added a great deal of information without any sources. If you wish to add relevant information to this or any article, you need to learn how Wikipedia works. You personally may have knowledge of Poulenc, but original research is not permitted here.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:22, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Best time of your life, eh?

("le moine et le voyou")
This is NOT a quotation from Poulenc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.251.186.109 (talk) 22:38, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The article doesn't say it is.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:46, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

The article uses quotation marks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.251.186.109 (talk) 22:48, 19 August 2011 (UTC)


 * You misunderstand. The article says it's a quote by someone else ABOUT Poulenc, not "from" Poulenc. Assuming you just misspoke, find a source that supports whatever you think it should be. And please sign your posts.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:53, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

You are absolutely right. I meant it is NOT a quote by the critic, not Poulenc. And I have already given the right quote. And am I the only one here who is supposed to give sources? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.251.186.109 (talk) 22:57, 19 August 2011 (UTC)


 * There is a source for the assertion now. I can't verify it without getting the book. However, to contradict it, you'd have to find another source. And this is the last time I respond to you until (1) you sign your posts and (2) you adopt a less combative tone. Even assuming you're knowledgeable, it really doesn't help for you to be so difficult.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:07, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

OK So you admit that you do not KNOW but YOU are the one that imposes HIS CHOICE and does not try to establish FACTS. FACTS are available. It's not that difficult. I'm not either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.251.186.109 (talk) 23:14, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

rediscover the Roman Catholic faith and resulted in compositions of a more sombre, austere tone
This is total and absolute FICTION. Histoire de Babar or Les Mamelles de Tirésias are later pieces, and can hardly be described as austere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.251.186.109 (talk) 22:45, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

He embraced the Dada movement's techniques
I would just love to have sources here. And what are those Dada movement's techniques precisely? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.251.186.109 (talk) 22:54, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

What are these techniques? The phrase "Dada movement's techniques" does not even appear once in Google results.

If P. had created "melodies more appropriate for Parisian music halls than the concert hall" we might never ever have heard of him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.249.17.33 (talk) 03:35, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Radiguet and Poulenc
You write Radiguet and Poulenc were lovers. Could you please indicate your sources? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.252.59.220 (talk) 22:55, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The source is after the following sentence (as the two sentences are related), and I screwed up. The source says Radiguet is Cocteau's lover. Thanks for questioning the statement. I'll fix it.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:07, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

bbb23
I reverted bbb23's reversions. Bbb23 demands that my changes be sourced. The page as it was written by Bbb23 was not sourced. Some facts were wrong, the page needed to be entirely rewritten more in line with WP standards. When I started working on the page there was an "Early years" section extending to ... Poulenc's 37th year. Why should the Poulenc page have been left in this sorry state?

The part of the page I have not worked on yet also needs rewriting. Help is needed here - by competent people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.159.110.107 (talk) 15:09, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Back again, are you? A shame. Just so it's clear to anyone reading this, I didn't write the Poulenc article. I won't respond to the rest of your nonsense, either here or on my Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:28, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

IP editors are invited to comment at User talk:Bbb23
Please review that discussion and offer your ideas for article improvement there. A long-running revert war is not helping the article. Sometimes a drive will get started to improve an article and the momentum will continue. Stuff that is not well-referenced can cause a lot of dispute and unhappiness, so anyone who can supply references for what is there now would be helping out. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 18:18, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

BB23 stop messing with this page
BBB23's version of Poulenc's life is just plain ludicrous. It does not even mention the Dialogues of the Carmelites. It seems that nothing happened between the late 30s and the end of P's life with the exception of the sonatas. This is preposterous. My page contains many links to other existing pages, everything can be checked. Stop being so ridiculous, boy. You are not the owner here, you are not even a contributor to this page. You have done enough harm here, go play somewhere else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.253.156.85 (talk) 02:07, 30 June 2012 (UTC)


 * (psst -- please don't insult other users) The material you are adding, going on memory and looking at the article in the French wiki, is accurate.  All it needs is references.  I notice the French article also lacks inline cites, although there are excellent sources listed at the end of that article.  82., you have access to any of these books?  Some of the material you have added I may be able to cite from my New Grove but I don't have a biography of Poulenc on hand.  Antandrus  (talk) 02:49, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Poulenc Gloria and Vivaldi Gloria
You know, I am probably way out in left field here. Though I am a musicologist (university of Michigan), I have never seen the assertion in print that there is any relation whatever between these two works. But it so happened that I performed the Vivaldi last December of 2011 and am planning to do the Poulenc this December in Dexter, Michigan with a chorus that I founded. So even though I was quite familiar with Poulenc's work having sung it a few times, it never crossed my mind that his movement titles (and the work title itself) are identical to Vivaldi's Gloria (for example, "Dominus Deus, Agnus Dei" instead of "Agnus Dei"). Here is my evidence for the idea that this work was "inspired", not derived, from Vivaldi's Gloria:

1. The Vivaldi Gloria was "discovered" and revived in 1938, 12 year's before Poulenc's Stabat Mater was performed in 1950.

2. Plain old "Gloria" is an unusual title for a liturgical work. How many others are there?

3. The movement titles are completely identical except that Vivaldi reprises the opening movement and ends his work with a "Cum Sancto" which was borrowed from another composer but reworked by Vivaldi. Poulenc follows Vivaldi's order of movements but breaks up the texts in different ways from Vivaldi and adds texts from other movements into new movements. Examples are the Laudamus words reappearing in Domine Fili, and "Gloria" at the end of the Domine Deus.

4. Not only the titles but the texts are identical. though the movements are juxtaposed and some omitted.

5. The rhythm of the word "Gloria" is identical to Vivaldi's setting, both rhythmically and tonally.

6. This may be a questionable argument, like No. 5. Both the Laudamus and the Domine Fili are dancelike in character in Poulenc and Vivaldi. Of course this tells us nothing, as any composer might set these texts this way. But there is a tentalizing resemblance to Vivaldi's melody in the Laudamus: It is rhythmically identical to Poulenc's, and similar in its opening tonal direction but not in the last 3 notes of the motive: Vivaldi -- Do mi fa so  Poulenc  -- Mi fa mi so (Eighth quarter quarter quarter)

Of course we can never know for sure unless it's in a biography somewhere, or a footnote. Thanks for reading this ramble! gdentel@hotmail.com (George Dentel) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.84.130.19 (talk) 00:33, 8 September 2012 (UTC)


 * George, the Gloria is one section of the Latin Mass. Zillions of Masses have been written, all containing a Gloria.  Occasionally composers set individual excerpts rather than whole Masses; hence we have these isolated Glorias, Sanctuses, Kyries, Dies Iraes etc etc.  The fact that the sections of Vivaldi's and Poulenc's Glorias have the same order and titles means precisely zero.  The fact that Poulenc's followed Vivaldi's ... well, that's hardly a surprise.  I haven't looked into the background of the Poulenc work, but I'd be surprised if he was inspired at all by the Vivaldi work. I'd be interested to read a cite that says so, though.  --  ♬  Jack of Oz  ♬  [your turn]  00:53, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

What does this sentence mean?
"Poulenc suffered severe depression due to the copyright to Georges Bernanos' libretto [for Dialogues]"

This is so confusing that I cannot begin to guess what it means, so I can't fix it. Any help? Lbark (talk) 03:43, 18 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I can guess that there was some legal problem over Bernanos's libretto, but it is not mentioned, as it should be. Unfortunately, the citation offered in support of this sentence, which has a template that should link it to something in the list of References, has no target, and there is nothing actually corresponding. I suspect that the 1982 publication by Keith W. Daniel may be the one meant but, since this is a publication in the UMI series it is almost certainly a revised reprint of a dissertation, possibly from 1980. If the original dissertation is the intended source, it should be added to the reference list, since the page numbers may not correspond to the UMI published version. Thanks for pointing out this sloppy sentence.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 04:10, 18 May 2013 (UTC)