Talk:Gabriel Fauré/Archive 1

"prolific?"
I don't think we can say "Fauré was a prolific composer". Faure's output is really avarage in size. Looking at the full list of Faure's works in Grove, the complete works of Faure would make less than 20 cds. This is easily 25% less than Chopin who is not considered a prolific composer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.37.236.172 (talk) 09:59, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

"foremost?"
What if we substituted for "He was the foremost French composer of his generation" the text "He rivalled Camille Saint-Saëns as the foremost French composer of their generation." Wouldn't that be more nuanced, though I too prefer Fauré?--Wetman 18:35, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The phrase is clearly a judgment and therefore POV. I suggest its changed to "one of the formeost...". Unless a citation can be found for him being foremost. Bringing in another candidate is just complicating things.  Lumos3 21:38, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Judgement is not necessarily POV in a bad way. You have to make some kind of judgement about a person in order to succinctly explain their accomplishments. I think the phrase you're talking about was my fault, I extrapolated it from Grove and other things. Grove says "The most advanced composer of his generation in France" sooooo, we could quote that in the intro paragraph, or have it as it is and put Grove as the source, or something. I don't think we should bring up Saint-Saëns (do people really think he was more important than Fauré?), as it would become confusing, and ranking all French composers of the period isn't really what this article is for. Mak (talk)  22:49, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I think it's necessary to at least cite Grove. I actually came to this discussion page because I was going to point out that I thought someone lifted and barely paraphrased the info from there.  I'm sure I'm not the only one who would think it was plagiarism without a citation.  Other than that, I agree that the statement is fine.  Grove is a very well-respected source and it is true that it's impossible to avoid making any judgments when dealing with a

person's accomplishments. SecretMethod70 14:30, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Deafness
- When did he "become" deaf, according to the category associated to him? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leonardo Teixeira de Oliveira (talk • contribs) 09:36, June 26, 2007


 * I've got the same question: it's not mentioned anywhere in the article, so could somebody please substantiate this and add a line to the article (hopefully with a source)? I'm leaving the category for the time being, but without confirmation it really shouldn't stay. Cgingold 01:52, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Leonardo, I guess your post is trying to make a distinction between some degree of hearing loss and deafness. “Deaf” does not necessarily mean that the person is stone deaf and can hear no sounds at all, which is quite rare.  Our deafness article tells us that deafness is “the audiological experience of someone who is partially or wholly lacking hearing.  In legal terms, deafness is defined by degree of hearing loss”.  This says “he had grown profoundly deaf (and complained that musical sounds seemed to break apart in his ears)”.  That is, he could still hear sounds but his hearing was so impaired that it was of little use to him.  There are plenty of other Google references to his deafness, and our article already covers his gradual hearing loss.  I have no qualms about him being categorised as "deaf".  -- JackofOz 02:16, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Sicilienne
If this piece is "among Fauré's most familiar" (as stated on answers.com), perhaps something should be stated in the article about it? HokieRNB 19:06, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Works section
This part looks completely abirtrary. It has some famous compositions plus some random obscure ones. Why not just have the ones he's famous for in here since there's already a page on all his compositions? The works section on this page can be the "highlights" if you will. We can have his Requiem, Cantique de Jean Racine, Elegie, Pavane, Berceuse, any basically anything else that has a page devoted entirely to it.Boondigger (talk) 05:02, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Note, user has been blocked for sockpuppetry. Viriditas (talk) 12:33, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Composer project review
I've reviewed this article as part of the Composers project review of its B-class articles. This article is B-class; the bio is pretty good, but there is little critical or popular appreciation of his works. I'm also concerned about the limited sources. My full review is on the comments page; questions and comments should be left here or on my talk page.  Magic ♪piano 03:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Images
I am planning to work on this article with the aim of getting it to GA or FA. One obstacle to the latter is the lack of source information about the images. Personally I have no doubt that the old photographs are in the public domain by virtue of their age, but the image zealots will proscribe any picture whose upload page doesn't say where the uploader got it from. If anyone can supply that information it would be helpful. Otherwise I have found a source of similar images with the necessary documentation, and will substitute if that's all right with everyone. — Tim riley (talk) 18:21, 23 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I think the 1864 image is safe by virtue of its age. The lead image should also be OK, since it's in commons.  The other two, if you can replace them with images that are just as good, that would probably be a good idea.  -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:04, 24 August 2010 (UTC)


 * That a picture is in Commons does not stop the image zealots from attacking it, as I know to my cost from putting Adrian Boult through FAC. Thanks for the thoughts on the other images – I shall do as you suggest. — Tim riley (talk) 18:03, 24 August 2010 (UTC)


 * True, but at least it is an indication that whoever brought it to commons thought it was safely PD. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:40, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Japanese
If anyone reads Japanese, the Japanese Wikipedia has a Featured Article on Faure. Is there anything in it worth translating? Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:09, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Name pronunciation
The current pronunciation "ɡabʁiɛl yʁbɛ̃ fɔʁe" is not helpful for an English article. Can someone put this into standard English pronunciation terms? [for-ray? fore?] Thanks (yes, there is a link to a table but that should be in-addition-to) HammerFilmFan (talk) 09:02, 27 January 2011 (UTC) HammerFilmFan
 * The problem is that the correct pronunciation is, I think, incapable of being expressed in standard English. The surname is two syllables - that's easily stated - but the particular vowel sound of the "au" has no English equivalent that I can think of. "Four-eh" is often heard, but is a rather crude approximation. The "a" in Gabriel is short, as in "cab" or "dab". Sorry not to be more help. Tim riley (talk) 10:21, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * According to - http://www.forvo.com/word/gabriel_fauré/ - it sounds pretty much like "gahb-ree-el four-ee" - I couldn't get the linked javascript from that site, but is there a way to put hyperlink for it in the lede? HammerFilmFan (talk) 21:19, 27 January 2011 (UTC) HammerFilmFan
 * I'd rather not, as it is really not a very good approximation of the real pronunciation. Tim riley (talk) 21:26, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Did you note that the submission was by a male Frenchman? HammerFilmFan (talk) 21:50, 27 January 2011 (UTC) HammerFilmFan
 * How about this one? http://www.forvo.com/word/gabriel_faure/ - that sounds to me more like the "fau-ray" written pronunciations I've seen at other websites ... HammerFilmFan (talk) 22:08, 27 January 2011 (UTC) HammerFilmFan
 * That's a bit closer, and would be better than nothing! Perhaps add it as a footnote, do you think? Tim riley (talk) 12:36, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Footnote? We need something to replace what is currently there - that is fairly useless for an ENGLISH article. People will look at that, and just skip right over it. I appreciate the work that went into that table, but that is for more specific interests. The article needs a standard English pronunciation - if Frenchmen themselves are saying the name in perfectly representable terms, what is the problem? If we get too technical on here, it serves no purpose. Why not 'gahb-ree-al fau-ray' or similar? HammerFilmFan (talk) 03:41, 29 January 2011 (UTC) HammerFilmFan
 * I think perhaps you need to check the MoS before going so far. I simply don't know what the Wikipedia rules are on this. Tim riley (talk) 09:54, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Inline comments
I have put two recent additions into comments because although on the whole I think they are accurate, they do not as they stand comply with WP MoS:
 * "While his best-known and most accessible compositions are generally his earlier ones, it has often been argued that Fauré composed his greatest works in the harmonically and melodically much more complex style of his later years - works such as his 2nd String Quintet, his late song cycles, his 2 cello sonatas, as well as his last composition, a string quartet." If the weasel words "it has often been argued that" are removed and proper citations are added this is a sustainable proposition, but cannot appear simply in the lead: see Manual of Style/Lead section.
 * Whether they [Fauré's late works] sound elusive and withdrawn (as some commentators regard them) or vigorous and passionate (as others view them) depends greatly on how they are performed: performers who have taken the latter approach include Yvonne Lefébure and Vlado Perlemuter, both of whom knew and worked with Fauré." More uncited assertions. (I happen to believe them to be correct, but that's not the point.) And, again, this cannot appear in the lead unless reflecting cited statements in the substantive body of the text, which it doesn't. Tim riley (talk) 12:28, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Images
Four of the portraits used in the article are happily peering away from the text. How did this ever achieve 'good article' status? Paul venter (talk) 07:27, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Your views on the GA criteria sound interesting. Which four? The matter of the Sargent image was discussed at peer review. I cannot bring myself to falsify an original as the MoS seems to suggest by reversing it. Tim riley (talk) 08:53, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Alas, total silence from this drive-by editor. The MoS says "It is often preferable to place images of faces so that the face or eyes look toward the text. However, images of people need not be reversed simply to make the person's face point the text." Tim riley (talk) 20:23, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * This errant editor was busy elsewhere. Layout editors of good magazines, journals and other publications have for ages accepted the dictum that portraits or other images with a directional bias should face the text, but WP editors have been for the greater part oblivious of this, and indeed some of them vigorously claim that appearance is improved by outward-facing portraits. I certainly do not believe in or suggest that reversing portraits is the solution. The mess in the MoS with regard to placing of images results from its cardinal and indefensible rule "to start with a right-justified image". If one is obliged to follow that rule, then there is certainly no need to use a right-facing portrait, as is presently the case. You asked which portraits were facing outwards - the lead portrait by Sargent, Faure's wife, and Maurice Ravel. If you do some judicious swopping of the images to the left side of the article, it would be a great improvement. The portrait of Faure as a young man would be a better lead image. cheers Paul venter (talk) 06:26, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * At peer review I explained that the Sargent portrait of Fauré is by so long a distance the best-known image of the composer that to anyone familiar with the subject it would look very strange not to lead with it. Both Mme Fauré-Fremiet and Ravel are surely looking at the camera, and not "happily peering away from the text" as you describe them. That said, I have Fauré on my to-do list to follow (the right-profiled) Elgar, Mahler, Messiaen and Tchaikovsky to FA, and will bear your suggestion in mind when expanding the article; your interest is, of course, greatly appreciated. Tim riley (talk) 09:10, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The article examples you cite as good role models show just how widespread the disease is. I shouldn't have used the word 'peering' because the portrait's orientation is more than just the eyes - it is the shoulders and face as well. The point is that the portrait placements I singled out lead the attention away from the article instead of into it - painters are very aware of this and try to compose a picture with many figures in such a way that the viewer's attention is naturally moved to the centre of attention - and not out of the picture. Ah well, I don't expect Wikipedia to change its habits as a result of my maundering, but some would benefit from a beginner's course in aesthetics. cheers Paul venter (talk) 19:57, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * That was lightly malicious of me, and in truth I entirely take your point, and will try to adopt your precepts. Tim riley (talk) 21:17, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I understand what Paul venter is saying, but the images of Faure's wife and Ravel are both looking over their shoulders back towards the reader, so I don't think the attention is pulled off the text. I don't see how you could rejigger all the images to fix the issue, as so many have bodies facing right.  I sympathize with Paul venter, but you should not let the tail wag the dog.  I believe that is why the MOS is flexible on the issue.  -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:53, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Radal Image Tones?
Can you elaborate on the pre text of the mis conception of the radial image tones. Reidenator (talk) 16:38, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Hello, Reidenator. I'm not sure what you are asking.  Could you explain?  All the best!  -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:47, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Encounter with Liszt
I have reverted a recent addition. The incident is well documented, and I have added a note to demonstrate the fact. The book used as a source for the recent change emanates from a religious organisation and cannot override the scholarship of Nectoux or Jones. –  Tim riley  talk    08:21, 24 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Not trying to start an edit war, but after looking at that source, even Nectoux himself says "Whether Liszt's eyes were not up to it, or whether he wanted to listen in judgement what a young artist could do, it seems he was acting absolutely in character." http://books.google.ca/books?id=YEo5jwtbnC4C&lpg=PA51&dq=Liszt%20Faure%20run%20out%20of%20fingers&pg=PA51#v=onepage&q=Liszt%20Faure%20run%20out%20of%20fingers&f=false  I'm not doubting the encounter happened, but it's hard to believe that Liszt couldn't play the piece, and many believe that he was being subtle in his comments. Literally, other than this Wikipedia article, nowhere does it imply Liszt found Faure's music technically difficult, and there may be something in between the lines as even Nectoux points out. I just feel by neglecting to mention that, we're not being completely honest.Font (talk) 00:54, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Interesting. Duchen (p. 61) says that although Liszt's words are normally taken to mean what they say, it is possible that he wanted to listen or couldn't read the manuscript. Morrison (p. 11) says sans phrase that Liszt found the Ballade "too difficult". Jones (p. 51) takes the same line: "The story is well known that, after playing several pages, Liszt said that it was too difficult for him to continue"; Jones does not speculate on any ulterior motive for Liszt's saying so.  Tim riley  talk    10:38, 10 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Much happier with your new edit. I've done a bit more reading as well, I think what seems to be the issue is that the preceding statement about arpeggiated figures implies Liszt was having technical difficulties. I found another source, not sure how to determine credibility but it states: "In 1877 Faure showed Ballade to Liszt, who declared it "too difficult," not because of the pianistic problems, but because of its unfamiliar harmonies and form." http://books.google.ca/books?id=m8W2AgAAQBAJ&lpg=PA204&ots=AT7u6er2ks&dq=liszt%20faure%20too%20difficult&pg=PA204#v=onepage&q=liszt%20faure%20too%20difficult&f=false Getting back to the point, I think the difficulty of Faure's music wouldn't be so much a technical issue of "arpeggiated figures", which Liszt would find "daunting", but other factors. I'm not sure if you're a pianist, but there shouldn't be anything in the Ballade which Liszt hasn't seen before technically. To play devil's advocate, he was in his 70s and not in his prime, but I think it'd be more accurate to state more likely reasons for Faure's music being difficult instead of just arpeggiated figures. Font (talk) 18:38, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * On a side note, I realize we have a slight conflict on whether Liszt said "I've run out of fingers" which the case for the arpeggiated figures could be plausible but not conclusive as he could of been metaphorical, or "It is too difficult". If only we had a time machine we could clear this up. What do we do when there's conflicting sources? Font (talk) 18:42, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Wow my third edit within an hour. I found a source from the Liszt side which supports my view that it isn't arpeggiated figures as the prime reason for difficulty. "Liszt handed it back, saying he found it too difficult - not difficult pianistically, he could hardly mean, but conceptually." http://books.google.ca/books?id=crkHAQAAMAAJ&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=too+difficult Page 221 of "Franz Liszt: The man and the musican" Font (talk) 18:56, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Enjoying ill-health
An editor persists in removing the word "suffered" as in "suffered from increasing deafness". But Fauré did suffer, as his letters show (and as any resonably person would expect.)  Tim riley  talk    07:28, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I didn't persist, I just gave up on your talk page. Aiming for neutrality and objective descriptions (something he became, not suffered nor enjoyed), but if you feel strongly about painting a "poor little guy" picture, knock yourself out.InedibleHulk (talk) 07:38, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * With the greatest possible respect, I don't know if you read the article before changing it, but this is a featured article, which has been carefully gone over at peer review and at the featured article candidacy stage. Your view is honourable – I see that dozens of other articles have suffered, had your attentions on this King Charles's head, some even beneficially for all I know – but suggesting that all those responsible for the promotion of the article to FA are biased or seeking to spin the truth is rather tiresome. I suppose we shall all just have to be long-hadding. –  Tim riley  talk    07:48, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I didn't mean to suggest you were intentionally spinning it. Words have their own power. I assume good faith here. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:08, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree Tim - this editor has also stripped the term out of the Ian Fleming artcle too, despite Fleming complaining he was suffering from his heart condition, and the multitude of reliable sources picking up on it. There is absolutely nothig wrong with the word in this context: it is appropriate in good, formal, encyclopaedic English, which is our aim here. - SchroCat (talk) 07:50, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * There was no talk of complaining, I went by what I saw in the paragraph. If he's indeed noted for complaining about the pain, that could be seen as notable suffering. Should spell that out clearer for readers who don't already know his story, otherwise it looks the same as a "battle" with cancer, or being "plagued by" suicidal thoughts. Per WP:EUPHEMISM, usually best to just say what the condition is. Like all guidelines, though, exceptions can pop up. If this is one, that's that. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:05, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * This is beyond reason. A composer is expected to feel neutral about going deaf? It needs spelling out for a sentient reader that he wasn't overjoyed about it? The word "suffered" is wholly correct and customary, and appropriate here and chez Fleming: see the OED: "To go or pass through, be subjected to, undergo, experience (now usually something evil or painful)". I have repaired the damage to another FA, Falstaff, and when I have time will check on the dozens of other similar drive-by edits.   Tim riley  talk    08:16, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * None of us can do anything about what the composer feels, only what the reader feels about the composer. I feel the "suffering" makes him sound pathetic. You clearly don't. I'm not doubting the dictionary, and used "experience" as a synonym in some. If you're genuinely concerned about the other articles, that's fine. But doing it just to make a point here would be pointless, as I've already conceded. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:34, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. A very civil closure to our small debate.  Tim riley  talk    08:37, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * You're right about the Falstaff thing, too. I'd overlooked the clause "a view strongly contradicted by Toscanini". He didn't doubt the lack, just thought it didn't hurt. I'll try to be more careful spotting these odd cases, or at least retaining their gist in rewording. Can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs. Thankfully, eggs can be unbroken on Wikipedia, without spoiling the entire omelette. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:55, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 15:46, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

New update * List of Compositions *
Just navigating the page of the romantic composer Faure but discovered that it doesn't have a full list of his compositions, just a few mentioned. May I ask the editor to make the List of Compositions by Gabriel Faure more apparent for public to look up to, because that note is easy to be missed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.93.127.162 (talk) 15:04, 22 December 2016
 * Thank you for your suggestion. For myself, I think that the link is prominent enough: you would naturally look for list of compositions under "Music" among the article sections in the list of contents, and the link to a full list is right at the top of it. Also, if you search for "faure compositions" on Google or Bing they both bring that page back as the top result. --RobertG ♬ talk 15:31, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Musical Era
The article states that Fauré was a romantic composer, although he lived mainly through the impressionist era and even partially into the 20th-century era. I can understand the statement because his music hints towards a more romantic style and doesn't have the impressionist trademarks that other composers of the era (such as Debussy and Ravel) include, but this could still create confusion. Please tell me your suggestions for whether he is impressionist or romantic on this talk page or on mine.

Thanks, William Thorpe (talk) 03:37, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
 * If you read the article carefully you will find that it doesn't state that Fauré was a romantic composer.  Tim riley  talk    20:48, 25 March 2018 (UTC)