Talk:Heitor Villa-Lobos

The Uirapuru spelling war
By modern official Portuguese spelling rules, the word uirapuru does not carry an acute accent (an oxytone terminating in u). It is possible that at the time Villa-Lobos wrote the piece, uirapurú was also an accepted form. Also possible that the spelling in the score reflects a decision by the French editor. If the standard is to refer to a musical piece by its original designation, the occurrence in the list of works should also be corrected. However, when referring to the bird itself (there is one instance), the modern spelling  should be used. Uirapuru, without the diacritical, is already used elsewhere in the Wikipedia. I know, it is nit-picking. -- 201.53.152.184 (talk) 01:25, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, you learn something every day. I see from the timeline of reforms in Spelling reforms of Portuguese that this standard must have been established in 1973, 1986, or 1990—in any case long after the composer's death. For what it's worth, the score was published in 1948, by Associated Music Publishers in New York (though it is still possible the editor was French, I suppose). Both this published score and the autograph manuscript dated "5/6/46" in the Leopold Stokowski collection at the University of Pennsylvania Library have the acute accent. It is probably for this reason that the Library of Congress adopted the spelling with the accent as their standard for the title of this composition.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:21, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


 * In Brazil, these spelling rules were adopted in 1943. Before that there was no official orthography.  A more recent law (1971) eliminated some non-essential diacritics such as in the word Choro, which no longer carries the circumflex.  Hard to say if HVL consciously kept his own spelling for the word at the time of publication.  The piece had been written a while before.  In the little material they have online, the Villa-Lobos museum adopts modern spelling for all work titles in Portuguese.  I am not sure if the Wikipedia has a recommendation on the issue. Either way, it looks like this entry is due for a rewrite.  The spelling in text body is not consistent with list of works, which also incomplete. -- 201.53.152.184 (talk) 17:27, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Dear Mr. Kohl (10/31/2007)
En la continuidad de nuestras comunicaciones de Julio de 2007, me permito escribirle en español por las deficiencias que tengo en el uso del idioma Ingles. Como un intento más para que Usted comprenda mejor lo que he tratado de explicarle anteriormente, le envio la siguiente direccion de internet:

http://ronaldpaz.iespana.es

que contiene el documento presentado por mi persona en la Conferencia Villa Lobos celebrada en Paris el año 2002. Agradeciendo sus futuros comentarios, le saluda muy atentamente

Ronald Paz

Biography assessment rating comment
The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. -- Edofedinburgh 01:11, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Dear Mr. Kohl
It is possible that I have not kept the forms from Wikipedia; I request excuses for that reason. When I affirm something I make it with total conviction and sincerity. This drift of the fact that my existence is product of the acts and the decisions that in the past took Heitor Villa-Lobos. In other words, I would not exist if he had not done what he did. Finally, I mean to you that Heitor Villa-Lobos is looking for true friends. He wants to relate his truth, and those that claim to be their friends not allow it. Kindly Ronald Paz

Was Villa-Lobos really sterile?
http://guiadoscuriosos.ig.com.br/index.php?cat_id=52969 internet brasilian source

Heitor Villa-Lobos (1887-1959)

•	Tuhú era seu apelido de infância. •	 Aos 6 anos, Heitor Villa-Lobos aprendeu a tocar violoncelo com o pai, em uma viola especialmente adaptada. Foi nessa época que compôs a sua primeira peça, Panqueca. •	Dona Noêmia, sua mãe, queria que Villa-Lobos estudasse medicina. Assim, proibiu o menino de estudar piano, com medo de que ele se empolgasse com a música. •	Estudou violão escondido de seus pais, que não aprovavam sua aproximação com os "chorões", músicos que se reuniam para tocar por prazer, em festas e durante o carnaval. •	Em 1915, no Auditório do Jornal do Comércio, Villa-Lobos realizou o primeiro concerto dedicado às suas composições. •	Uma doença venérea o deixou estéril. •	O maestro tinha mania de empinar pipas. Certa vez, na França, ele fez uma pipa de 3 metros. O vento o arrastou junto com o pianista espanhol Tomaz Téran, que participava da brincadeira. •	Ele aprendeu a jogar capoeira. •	Villa-Lobos acabou (por carta) um casamento de 23 anos com Lucília Guimarães em 1936. Logo depois, se casou com Arminda Neves d'Almeida, 25 anos mais jovem que ele. •	Era um mitômano assumido. Uma das histórias mais conhecidas envolvendo seu nome é a de que teria escapado por pouco de ser devorado por índios antropófagos. •	Ele estreou como músico "modernista" na Semana de Arte Moderna de 1922, realizada no Teatro Municipal de São Paulo. Apresentou Sonata nº 2, Danças Características Africanas, Quarteto Simbólico e Impressões da Vida Mundana em meio a vaias e urros da platéia. O mais curioso é que em um de seus concertos entrou de casaca e de chinelos, pois estava com um dos pés machucado. •	Todo o acervo deixado por Villa-Lobos após a morte estão arquivados no Museu Villa-Lobos, que fica no Rio de Janeiro (RJ). São 13 mil documentos, entre cartas, partituras, livros de sua biblioteca pessoal, cartazes e programas de concertos e reportagens publicadas enquanto era vivo.

Started a Villa-Lobos page, my first contribution to Wikipedia. Hope to have the page translated into (at least) Portuguese. - Deanfrey 22:36 Jan 31, 2003 (UTC)

If you need help...
If you need help, I can translate the article into Portuguese for you!

--Milena 16:46, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)


 * Gavota

Nobody promised it would be easy??

http://www.musica.ufrn.br/gravacoes/escudeiro230703/index.htm

http://www.musica.ufrn.br

But great..

"Best known composer"
I would think that the statement would need verification? Admittedly, I don't know where to find it... Diogenes00 20:57, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * My source is Componistenlexicon (Th. Willemze, 1971, in Dutch; English: Composers Lexicon), which states about Villa-Lobos: the greatest composer of the South-American continent. Some more or less independent Web sites:
 * Guild Music Since his death in 1959 Villa-Lobos has been recognised as the great genius of South American music.
 * Encyclopædia Britannica : one of the foremost Latin American composers of the 20th century


 * I can also live with an addition like "of the 20th century" or "during his life time", but there are not many composers from South-America. Are there any other candidates for best known composer of South America? China Crisis 08:43, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Astor Piazzolla. JackofOz 08:47, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I changed best known composer to best known classical composer China Crisis 08:03, 15 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Would anyone be opposed to changing it to "one of the best known..."? Frankly the phrase best known is just not very neutral at all... Harryhoy7 (talk) 05:30, 20 February 2017 (UTC)Harryhoy7


 * Since this phrase has already been changed several times since that discussion eleven years ago, and the current version cites a reliable source, what is wrong with sticking to the source?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:27, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

LOST?
I wonder why the note for the lost pieces really remind me of the title of a tv series :p sentausa 14:47, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Copied?
Compare the article to this article: I think it's copied straight from there. I hate when Wikipedia does this. I find it all over the place. This definitely is not free domain text and needs to be edited. Hazelorb 02:28, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I agreed with this comment, and have done something about it. --RobertG &#9836; talk 17:43, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Persistent vandal?
Four times in the past two days a text, apparently claiming (the grammar is so bad that it is hard to tell exactly) that Villa-Lobos fathered an illegitimate daughter in 1935, has been added to this article, and removed by me on grounds of vandalism. Each time, the item concludes with a statement to contact one Ronald Paz, at a yahoo.com email address, for further information, though it is not certain that Mr. Paz is the individual responsible for this persistent reposting. It is possible that this addition was meant sincerely, in which case I ask the anonymous poster (from four different but possibly related addresses, 200.87.183.201, 200.87.183.84, 200.87.181.37, and 200.87.181.244) to bring the discussion to this page.

In case the writer accepts this invitation, I find the following defects:
 * 1) The writer claims that "all 'the official' biographies" state that Villa-Lobos was sterile. These biographies are not named, nor are page references given. I know of only one "official" biography (the brief one published by the Villa-Lobos Museum), and it contains no mention of Villa-Lobos's fertility or lack thereof. Nor do the other biographies I have read (admittedly not every single published one).
 * 2) The citation of a biopic (Villa-Lobos Uma Vida de Paixao, 2000) is not a reliable source of verification for biographical facts.
 * 3) Reference to "docuemnts [sic] in the Congress (Conference) the International Heitor Villa-Lobos, celebrated year 2002 in Paris-France" is vague. A conference-paper citation requires (1) the title of that paper, (2) the author's name, (3) the date on which it was delivered and, ideally, actual or prospective publication data. It is not clear even if these claims were made in a formal paper, or if they may have been made in casual conversations in the corridors or over lunch.
 * 4) I have cross-checked the Villa-Lobos articles on the French, Portuguese, and Finnish Wikipedia sites (the Conference in question was jointly sponsored by institutions in Brazil and Finland), none of which mention these claims.
 * 5) A search of the International Villa-Lobos Conference official website does not turn up any mention of such a paper, nor does a general web-wide search, though five or six other papers presented at the conference are easily found. It seems preposterous that such information, if well-founded, would not have been disseminated for five years following the conference.
 * 6) Given the oblique reference to monetary claims owing to the alleged daughter, legal proceedings must have been filed in a court of law somewhere. Such filings would be public records, and could be cited as references, along with the findings of the court.

It is of course commonplace for such claims to be made in cases where a substantial amount of money may be involved. However, this erstwhile contributor has not even documented where and how these matters have been brought up. If in fact documentation can be brought forward, I will cheerfully concede the merit in these claims. For now, it looks to me like only malicious and unfounded gossip.--Jerome Kohl 01:15, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Definitely keep it out of the article unless a reliable, published source can be found. I've never heard this before either.  Thanks, Antandrus  (talk) 01:50, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Answer to Mr. Kohl
My name is Ronald Paz and I am the author of the note inserted in the page of Wikipedia. I am the grandson of Heitor Villa-Lobos and in that quality I write. Therefore I am not a vandal. I understand your surprise when seeing suddenly an affirmation like which I do. But my story is true and I can say that: You of the personal life of Villa-Lobos nothing knows. You write with sources of third hand; that's not my case. For your information: 1. I was present in Paris in the Conference; 2.I presented officially the document denominated “In memory of Heitor Villa - Lobos, Results of a Research”, where with luxury of details it is related as the existence of the Daughter of Villa Lobos were hidden by the Museum Villa Lobos and in individual by Mrs. Arminda Neves de Almeida. Therefore, one was not conversation in the corridors. Why the conclusions of that Conference were not published?

3. I know all those that participate in this conference: Turibio Santos; Pierre Vidal; Eero Tarasti and much others including the representative of Max Esching: publisher, with who my grandfathers had to subscribe a inescrupulous contract. With these antecedents, I recommend you that before erasing the things one inquires more. Finally, I must say you that I am going to follow insertanto my truth in the page of Wikipedia, because It's my right and You are not the owner of this free encyclopedia Kindly Ronald Paz
 * Mr. Paz, I can see that you are sincere, but the polemical tone you adopt is, as one other editor has pointed out, "not encyclopedic". Removing matter written in such a tone does not require that an editor "inquires more". Rather, it is the responsibility of the contributor to provide adequate documentation, especially when exceptional claims are being made. It is not your "right" to insert just anything at all. On the contrary, it is not only the right but the duty of other editors here to remove undocumented, contentious or dubious material. Please see Wikipedia:Reliable sources, particularly the section titled “Exceptional claims require exceptional sources”. I get the impression that you are not very familiar with Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and so I recommend that you read:
 * Wikipedia:five pillars (also in Spanish and French)
 * as well as three key policies:
 * Neutral point of view (Spanish, French)
 * Verifiability (Spanish, French)
 * No original research (Spanish, French)
 * If you adhere to these guidelines and provide the necessary documentation, there will be no need for anyone to remove your contribution (though of course, like everything else on Wikipedia, anyone can edit the text).--Jerome Kohl 18:53, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Best known
I don't feel strongly enough to put it back, and obviously others disagree with me, but as the main contributor to this article I do feel I need to register that I think this assertion is not even wrong. --RobertG ♬ talk 23:37, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I take it that you are denying any difference between "classical" and "popular" music?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:41, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Not at all :-) I think Piazzola studied with Nadia Boulanger, and his works are in the repertoire of "classical musicians" such as the Katona twins.  --RobertG &#9836; talk 09:02, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, Burt Bacharach studied with Milton Babbitt, but that doesn't make him well-known as a classical composer, and Jimi Hendrix's "Purple Haze" and "Little Wing" are in the repertoire of "classical musicians" such as the Kronos Quartet, Nigel Kennedy, Michael Nicolella, and the Polish Chamber Orchestra. FWIW, I just checked a web-based classical-music CD outlet and was surprised to find 360 recordings with music by Piazzolla there. Mind you, 148 of them are of his three best-known tangos. The same site lists 471 recordings of Villa-Lobos, if that is anything to go by.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:09, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * That's fascinating. I don't think Bacharach's or Hendrix's oeuvres are like Piazzola's.  You'd probably find that most of the hundreds of available recordings of Johann Strauss II are of his ten most popular waltzes, marches and polkas.  To get back to the point - I am fairly certain that Villa-Lobos is not easily the most well-known classical composer from South America.  --RobertG &#9836; talk 09:36, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * All right, then, accepting that Piazzolla does not fall into this category, who would be Villa-Lobos's closest competitors? Revueltas? Ginastera? Ponce? Gomes? Although all of these are well-known, I can scarcely imagine any of them as serious rivals for fame. There is also the question of what criteria determine "well-known-ness". Would simply removing the word "easily" from the lede satisfy you? Or might it be better to quote Gerard Béhague's New Grove article, which more modestly calls him "the single most significant creative figure in 20th-century Brazilian art music"?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:16, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I cannot have expressed myself clearly. I still think Piazzola is his "closest competitor" - although that phrase turns it into a beauty contest, which it surely isn't.  I agree with you about the others.  I also think the fact that we can have this discussion makes the lead's assertion about Villa-Lobos and South America into original research (unless there's a reliable source).  I like Béhague's comment very much - and I think that would be much more apposite.  I rank a composer's creative significance as much more notable than his well-known-ness, anyway.  --RobertG &#9836; talk 23:49, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, I think we are in agreement at least that the sentence in question amounts to OR. I have changed the lede accordingly, to incorporate Béhague's assessment.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 03:37, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I concur. Thank you.  --RobertG &#9836; talk 09:05, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Why can't the lead (I refuse to write lede) just say Villa-Lobos was a composer? Why must it rank him? By the way, Burt Bacharach did not study with Milton Babbitt; he studied with Martinu and Milhaud. You're probably thinking of Stephen Sondheim, who studied for two years with Milton Babbitt more or less as graduate work. Although Sondheim and Burt Bacharach are around the same age and Bacharach did write one musical, it seems to me pretty strange to confuse the two. Also: Ponce was Mexican. Mexico is in North America, not South America. Mexico doesn't even border South America; there are eight more North American countries in between. In my opinion, Villa-Lobos is far less significant a composer than Ginastera, but since Ginastera was Argentinian, I don't see any basis of comparison, anyway. Is there a Wikipedia article that begins "such and such is the most famous European composer"? The most famous Brazilian composer period, unqualified, was Jobim, but notice that the Wikipedia Jobim article doesn't begin by saying that--with or without genre qualification. No, not only does this article (the Villa-Lobos article) not need to say Villa-Lobos is the most famous anything; it absolutely should not. TheScotch (talk) 05:52, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

About Wright 1992
"Villa-Lobos has become the best-known and most significant Latin American composer of all time." presented at the synopsis of the book on google books http://books.google.com.br/books?id=cFlaAAAAMAAJ&dq=Villa-Lobos+Oxford+Simon+Wright&lr=&ei=xoNFSbv0PJzAMrveod4N —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.26.42.26 (talk) 22:16, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Choir Works
Could someone please add his choir compositions such as Bendita Sabedoria? It seems they are not yet in the list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.201.70.116 (talk) 06:34, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Work list
I notice that the work list within this article has grown and grown, and yet there is still a note at the head of the section directing the reader to the complete List of compositions by Heitor Villa-Lobos. I believe it is usual in cases like this to retain only a short list of the most important or characteristic compositions, or even to list only the most important compositions not already discussed in the article text. What do other editors think?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:40, 1 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree. The List of compositions by Heitor Villa-Lobos info should not be duplicated. -- Klein zach  02:47, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ I've now removed the duplicated sections, moving some details to the list. -- Klein zach  03:04, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Infobox
Is there a possibility to add an infobox for this article?--Mishae (talk) 05:48, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * There is always such a possibility, but I personally oppose such a thing, in agreement with the objections raised on WikiProject_Composers.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 07:05, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * How many people object?--Mishae (talk) 15:08, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I suggest you read this guideline, and this one, and also this one, and then re-phrase your question.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:19, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I miss infoboxes, and other important composers (e.g., Bach and Beethoven) have small infoboxes. In my opinion, they are better to see quick facts like birth/death dates/places, and family associations. Hence, there is no consensus about this. --Rudolf Hellmuth (talk) 13:34, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
 * It is true that some other important composers have infoboxes, but many do not (e.g., Palestrina, Monteverdi, Telemann, Vivaldi, Haydn, Mozart, Chopin, Wagner, Schoenberg). You are correct, there is no consensus across Wikipedia on this, and no consensus for change on this article, either.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:59, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Tagged 5 links as dead
, Tagged 5 links as dead. Cheers! 09:37, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * All fixed, now. Thanks for calling my attention to these.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:38, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Heitor Villa-Lobos. 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/20080921190048/http://www.tar-radio.com/myapp/articles/view/130 to http://www.tar-radio.com/myapp/articles/view/130

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) 22:51, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Nepomuceno
Villa-Lobos mostly self-taught but taught some by Alberto Nepomuceno? Schissel | Sound the Note! 17:37, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Please expand. I do not find Nepomuceno mentioned anywhere in this article, though his own bio article mentions Villa-Lobos as among his pupils. Is that the point?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:27, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, sorry- I think I was in a hurry at the time but should have just waited. Schissel | Sound the Note! 02:18, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, then, all we need is a reliable source. Caution is indicated, however, given the long history of "reliable sources" on this composer that have proved less than reliable upon closer examination.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 02:49, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Hrm. Appleby (2014) does mention AN’s “controversial” encouragement of Villa-Lobos and helping VL get some scores published but, not the same thing. Will look. Schissel | Sound the Note! 03:14, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Gerard Béhague in New Grove fails to mention Nepomuceno at all. The other obvious places to look are the biographies by Tarasti, Peppercorn, Negwer, and Wright. Volpe's 2001 dissertation discusses Nepomuceno alongside Gomes and Villa-Lobos, but I can't recall whether any teacher-student relationship is mentioned. —Jerome Kohl (talk) 03:19, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * OK, scratch Volpe's dissertation from the list of sources to investigate. Despite her extensive discussion of Brazilianism in Nepomuceno's music, she never once mentions that Villa-Lobos studied with him.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 03:29, 25 February 2018 (UTC)