Talk:Kaikhosru Shapurji Sorabji/Archive 1

Comment
The Opus clavicembalisticum is neither the longest piece nor (as the book of w. r. puts it more carefully) the longest non-minimalistic/repetitious piece (in the manner of Satie's Vexations which is certainly longer). Sorabji's Symphonic Variations for piano is very likely longer, for instance. Schissel - bowl listen 04:01, 30 December 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this information to light. Ryguillian (talk) 09:15, 20 February 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps a more complete listing of Sorabji's repitoire is in order? Anybody have any information pertaining to this. I am aware of one published listing. - — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.176.193.252 (talk) 03:51, 7 April 2005 (UTC)


 * I can think of writing to Paul Rapoport about using part of his list with permission (him, or contacting Alistair Hinton, but I'd contact Prof. Rapoport first), but his list is the only even mostly accurate one I know of. He wrote the latest Grove Dictionary entry as well as the chapter in A Critical Celebration that you may be thinking of?? Schissel : bowl listen 18:42, 7 April 2005 (UTC)


 * I asked him about the list in A Critical Celebration specifically; he's alright with its being paraphrased but not reproduced. Also was warned to watch out for incompleteness and minor mistakes at that (I also asked about in part vs in full but the reply didn't -directly anyway- reply there. May want to make a large but admittedly selective and, yes, paraphrased list.) Schissel : bowl listen 17:59, 17 April 2005 (UTC)


 * If no one else has by then I'll get on this fairly soon. Probably a brief and selective list, but haven't decided yet whether to organize by time-period or medium/genre/... (Ok ok already, enough talk, will see if I have something this evening.) Schissel : bowl listen 17:18, 20 April 2005 (UTC)

It would seem that much of Sorabji's music is in the public domain, and almost all of that is unpublished, available only via photocopy from private archive. If anyone comes across any of his sheet music, it would be great if it were posted here, to avoid getting gouged hundreds of dollars by university archivists with photocopiers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.161.115.23 (talk) 04:09, 7 June 2005 (UTC)


 * On the contrary, the Sorabji Archive holds the copyright at this time to most of it, unless I am much mistaken. Schissel : bowl listen 04:29, 7 June 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be advantageous to get more information on Sorabji and possibly a picture? Also, perhaps members of the Sorabji Archive would be interested in contributing to this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.176.193.252 (talk) 17:20, 28 June 2005 (UTC)


 * Would like to keep a specific number of indents to each specific person (that's how I've seen it done on Wiki-talk pages rather than having long conversations go 'in' 12 paces, turn about, shoot!... bad joke. As to your question, yes- could ask Mr. Hinton or Prof Rapoport (actually, now retired I think??... need to check McMaster page about that) about a photo, about involvement (not creative control, that's not a Wikipedia thing  I'd say, but collaboration yes ...) Schissel : bowl listen 13:53, 29 June 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm glad to see the page being expanded; it mig... it would be wise to ask Mr. Hinton about quoting that brochure (even though it is public relations material; I've asked similarly about the brochure put out by the Benjamin Frankel society and its very substantial list of compositions, even though in my case regrettably it was a request after the fact...) and again any further references to/matters sourced from A Critical Celebration need to be within its editor's general guidelines (summarizing, paraphrasing, etc. - I can ask if he was paraphrasing "fair use" law which would be a very limited quotation/paraphrase indeed and require the removal of much that's already there, but certainly too much more specifically from would violate the intent. Using the brochure if allowed by its author is certainly a good supplement. Schissel : bowl listen 16:17, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Geoffrey Douglas Madge and Opus clavicembalisticum
We're told that he performed it "several times", but also that he performed it "six times". Does the "several times" refer only to 1982, or to his entire career? This needs to be clarified.

What's the evidence that Madge's improvisations have led to negative criticism of Sorabji's music in general? I've removed "blatantly" (POV). JackofOz 01:29, 14 November 2005 (UTC)


 * In 1982 (p 442, my copy of Critical Celebration...) he performed O.Clav. once- June 11 in Utrecht, broadcast simultaneously (also one incomplete performance, one movement only, also in June.) Schissel-nonLop! 06:00, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Piano variations
The Symphonic variations in three books for solo piano - I believe that's the title, I'll check - not yet performed, recently edited at least in part into a performing edition - are long enough, require enough choices in tempo, that "five hours" seems at best an approximation; performances of the briefer Opus Clav. have lasted between, I think, two and a half and upwards of four hours. And this is without significant multiply-repeated sections such as are an integral part of the aesthetic of Satie (much Vexed.. ok, ok..) or Feldman, at least in the works of Sorabji's that I know-- such as cause a big work like Feldman's 2nd quartet to have had performance durations in really wide ranges. (I'm surprised from descriptions I've seen of Rzewski's The Road that its performance timing isn't on the order of "6-9 hours depending on performer choices of tempo" -- etc. -- also. And I do not know where the 5 hours figure came from, though it may well be accurate!) Schissel-nonLop! 06:00, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Opening Sentence
There are obviously many problems with this article. Namlely, it is in need of complete reorganization as it is currently in a highly unbalanced and is mostly a patch-work of miscellaneous facts (some of which, as I’ll show, are inaccurate). Let’s take the opening sentence, for example.

“Kaikhosru Shapurji Sorabji (August 14, 1892 – October 15, 1988) was a pianist, music journalist and composer of mixed Parsi and Spanish-Italian/Sicilian descent, who was born in and lived in Britain (Epping, Essex)”

Well, for one the order “pianist”, “music journalist”, and “composer” seems rather off. It seems to me that a better order would be rather the opposite: “composer”, “music journalist”, and “pianist” as Sorabji is most well known for his compositions.

Also, the bit about being of “mixed Parsi and Spanish-Italian/Sicilian descent” is questionable to. At least, information in the booklet accompanying Jonathan Powell’s recording of Sorabji’s Fantasia ispanica on the Altarus Label suggestions otherwise, “Sorabji may well have been misled into believing that he was part Spanish and part Sicilian” and “recent research has unearthed evidence of neither [his mother’s supposed] Spanish nor Sicilian family.”

ryguillian 14:37, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Complete list?
Replaced with selected list instead. (Ah. I was under the misapprehension that my e-mail from Paul Rapoport dated 4-17-05 required at most a selected list- no:

"Paraphrased is okay, not reproduced."

The list in A Critical Celebration - which has now been reproduced online, but that cannot be reproduced without permission either - is incomplete also so Selected list seems appropriate and less misleading in any case. Schissel | Sound the Note! 13:11, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Original surname: Dudley or Sorabji??
(This post moved from User Talk:JackofOz) Actually, if you read his online biographies, it states that his birth name was Leon Dudley Sorabji (his father was an Indian civil servant of Parsi background). Thats why I put Sorabji at the end of Leon Dudley. Afghan Historian 21:10, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The internet is full of information, some accurate and some not. For example:
 * This and Britannica and many other internet sites say he was born Leon Dudley.
 * This has a bet each way. It calls him "Leon Dudley" in the title, but "Leon Dudley Sorabji" in the text.
 * This asserts his surname was always Sorabji, and puts the blame at the feet of Nicolas Slonimsky for getting the information wrong.
 * Slonimsky was a stickler for doing original research, obtaining birth and death certificates rather than relying on what others had said about composers' dates and places of birth and death and their birth names. In the absence of any solid documentary evidence to the contrary, I would much prefer to believe him.  JackofOz 07:21, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Date of death
Slonimsky also says that Sorabji died on 14 October, not 15 October. Can this be verified? -- JackofOz (talk) 23:03, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Verification : Yes, he really died. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.3.60.34 (talk) 23:49, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorabji Entry: Major Edit?
Although I am grateful for the work that has been accomplished in creating an entry for Sorabji on Wikipedia, I do feel that a substantial rewrite is in order, one that is more expansive, detailed, and accurate. Should the editing community agree it would be my pleasure to initiate this process, drawing from my doctoral dissertation and research on the composer for the bulk of the facts and a more relevant sequence of subheadings? Please share any thoughts, suggestions, admonishments or dissensions that you might have. (Seanvaughn (talk) 22:42, 26 December 2008 (UTC))


 * Assuming you are still waiting for an answer, then yes, it would be great if this article could contain more than just lists and anecdotes. Toccata quarta (talk) 09:35, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Partial list
Being aware of the fact that in recent times I have been the only person to work with substantial frequency on this article, I would like to raise the issue of what should be done with the list of performed and recorded works. What should be included, and what should be excluded? Since the only piece by Sorabji to have an article devoted to it is Opus clavicembalisticum, we can't place a discography elsewhere. Nevertheless, should the list found in this article be limited to "major works"? If so, I might reduce it somewhat, if no one objects. --Toccata quarta (talk) 14:11, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

His "profound love" for Erik Chisholm
Amazing what one comes across when researching other things. Here it says that Sorabji was "profoundly in love with Erik Chisholm and (although not reciprocating that love) Chisholm’s true musical homage is here, for it is ......".

It's on record that they were close friends for many years. Does this mean that Sorabji wanted it to be more than platonic? -- ♬  Jack of Oz  ♬  [your turn]  11:30, 18 June 2012 (UTC)


 * The subject has been discussed here. --Toccata quarta (talk) 11:51, 18 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Cool, and thanks. I couldn't help noticing how often people kept saying that, whatever the truth was, "it's none of our business".  I'm sure they wouldn't have had that attitude if Chisholm had been a woman and Sorabji had been straight.  They'd have been happy to discuss all the details.  It's only same-sex relationships that are supposedly off limits for academic discussion.  I've encountered this weird (and, frankly, discriminatory) attitude on Wikipedia and other places as well.  Why don't they just admit that they're uncomfortable even thinking about what 2 men might do together, let alone writing about it; rather than hiding their feelings behind a veil of intellectual indifference.  --  ♬  Jack of Oz  ♬  [your turn]  12:16, 18 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree with you on the subject of hypocrisy in sexual relationships. Anyway, there's no other source for that claim and Sorabji had a homosexual partner in any case. --Toccata quarta (talk) 12:22, 18 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm learning as I go here. I wasn't aware he was gay, although it doesn't surprise me. But now I notice he's in the categories LGBT composers and LGBT musicians from the United Kingdom.  Except there is precisely zero information in the article, that I can find, that would support those categories.  That's really a no-no.  We have to say in the article why we believe he fits in those categories.  And it has to be cited etc, all the usual rules.  If that material is not available, then we must remove the categories until such time as it does become available.  And it's not enough to obliquely hint at it, either.  Categorisation should never be a surprise to someone who's read the whole article and who was previously unfamiliar with the subject.  You clearly have the jump on me on this aspect of his psyche, so can you provide a suitable cite?  --  ♬  Jack of Oz  ♬  [your turn]  12:53, 18 June 2012 (UTC)


 * The current footnote 25 has been in the article for quite a while now. --Toccata quarta (talk) 13:01, 18 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Wow, so it is. I checked out Private life and just scanned the rest quickly, too quickly as it turns out.  The sentence "As an invert ... much of his lifetime" is not really about his "writings".  It doesn't give any detail about books or other major literary undertakings, and might just be letters to editors of newspapers or to politicians, for all I know.  It's more about revealing the fact of his homosexuality.  This or something similar really does belong in Private life, in my opinion, because one could read that whole section, as I did half an hour ago, and come away with no sense that he was gay.  That's not really being of service to our readers. --  ♬  Jack of Oz  ♬  [your turn]  13:13, 18 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I certainly think it should be mentioned in the biography section. Part of the problem involved in the creation of an article on Sorabji is that we have no biography of him at the moment. There is the Owen work, which is focused on the later part of his life, and there are the biographical sections in the book edited by Rapoport, but we have no synthetic biography at this point. Marc-André Roberge, who has been working on one for over 15 years, stated several years ago, "[The present writer] is also nearing the completion of a critical biography, tentatively entitled Opus sorabjianum; writing this book has been an arduous task as a result of the scarcity of sources; indeed, the composer refused to lead a public life and eventually left London to live as a recluse in a small village in the south of England." Such a fact makes it rather hard to build a meaningful article (as opposed to a collage of facts). --Toccata quarta (talk) 13:39, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Projects
Is there some reason why this article is not part of any project having to do with the UK and/or England? --Toccata quarta (talk) 14:05, 18 June 2012 (UTC)


 * You might want to take that up @ UK Wikipedians' notice board, but my sense is that Wikiproject Britain is more about British places rather than notable British people. I'm not big into the project thing.  Others will know more.  --  ♬  Jack of Oz  ♬  [your turn]  06:26, 19 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the suggestion; I have asked there for help. --Toccata quarta (talk) 08:39, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Assessment
Toccata quarta asked me to look at this article; herewith my commentary.

Does the article reflect what is known about the composer's background and childhood? If s/he received musical training as a child, who from, is the experience and nature of the early teachers' influences described? Does the article indicate when s/he started composing, discuss early style, success/failure? Are other pedagogic and personal influences from this time on his/her music discussed? Does the article discuss his/her adult life and composition history? Are other pedagogic and personal influences from this time on his/her music discussed? Are lists of the composer's works in WP, linked from this article? If there are special catalogs (e.g. Köchel for Mozart, Hoboken for Haydn), are they used? If the composer has written more than 20-30 works, any exhaustive listing should be placed in a separate article. Does the article discuss his/her style, reception by critics and the public (both during his/her life, and over time)? Does the article contain images of its subject, birthplace, gravesite or other memorials, important residences, manuscript pages, museums, etc? Does it contain samples of the composer's work (as composer and/or performer, if appropriate)? (Note that since many 20th-century works are copyrighted, it may not be possible to acquire more than brief fair use samples of those works, but efforts should be made to do so.) If an article is of high enough quality, do its images and media comply with image use policy and non-free content policy? (Adherence to these is needed for Good Article or Featured Article consideration, and is apparently a common reason for nominations being quick-failed.) Does the article contain a suitable number of references? Does it contain sufficient inline citations? (For an article to pass Good Article nomination, every paragraph possibly excepting those in the lead, and every direct quotation, should have at least one footnote.) If appropriate, does it include Further Reading or Bibliography beyond the cited references? Does the article comply with Wikipedia style and layout guidelines, especially WP:MOS, WP:LEAD, WP:LAYOUT, and possibly WP:SIZE? (Article length is not generally significant, although Featured Articles Candidates may be questioned for excessive length.)
 * Origins/family background/studies
 * Good
 * Early career
 * Good
 * Mature career
 * Good
 * List(s) of works
 * Good
 * Critical appreciation
 * Good
 * Illustrations and sound clips
 * Fail; there are no images or media. Given the subject's privacy and (lack of) publication history, images and media of the subject may be hard to come by; however, images of people mentioned in the article (and media of influential compositions, if available), may be of use here.  (It may also be appropriate to excerpt 30-second clips from commercial recordings as fair use samples of his work.  If the files at Sorabji-files.com are indeed in the public domain, they could also be uploaded to Commons and used.)
 * References, sources and bibliography
 * Referencing and sources are generally adequate.
 * Structure and compliance with WP : MOS
 * Good
 * Things that may be necessary to pass a Good Article review
 * Article prose needs work (WP:MOS)
 * Article needs (more) images and/or other media (MOS:IMAGE)

This is a decent article about an interesting and somewhat enigmatic figure. Its principal defects are a lack of imagery and media, and in the prose. A few specific observations on the writing:
 * Summary
 * "Relationship with his own father": "own" is extraneous
 * "pianistic help" is awkward: use "piano tutoring" or something similar instead
 * It is unclear how the content of the "Fate of legacy" section relates to the subject heading (which is also awkward)
 * Short paragraphs are generally frowned upon; try to either combine or expand those

All in all, nicely done so far.  Magic ♪piano 00:32, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Copy edit, January 2013
I'll add bullets as and when questions arise. Let's thread with nested bullets or indents for each point. I'll strike each point/question as it's resolved.


 * The shift in Sorabji's attitude to public performances of his music has generally been ascribed to Tobin's performance: we may be able to improve the tense here. Is this still a widely held view, or is it superseded now? --Stfg (talk) 12:43, 9 January 2013 (UTC)


 * The main problem in making a decision in this respect is the scarcity of scholarship on Sorabji's life (which is largely a product of his reclusiveness). If you look at random web pages, you will see that they usually blame only Tobin. To the best of my knowledge, there was no complex explanation offered in the book Sorabji: A Critical Celebration (1992), and Simon John Abrahams was the first to present one (in 2002). In Kaikhosru Shapurji Sorabji: An Oral Biography (2007), Sean Vaughn Owen writes "Although the psychological impetus for the shift in Sorabji's attitude regarding performances of his own music should not be over-simplified, Tobin's disastrous performance has generally been regarded as the catalyst for Sorabji's next major decision, to ban all public performances of his music." (p. 25) Toccata quarta (talk) 13:02, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. In that case, I think "has generally been ascribed" is indeed the right tense. --Stfg (talk) 13:10, 9 January 2013 (UTC)


 * "Sorabji not only returned to composition as a result of his interest in his work, ...". Is that Hinton's interest, or Yonty Solomon's? --Stfg (talk) 13:58, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Hinton's. Toccata quarta (talk) 14:02, 9 January 2013 (UTC)


 * The commission: "... received what was at the time the equivalent of 1,000 US dollars for it." Can we state the contemporary amount, and worth $1000 in the values of what year? --Stfg (talk) 14:23, 9 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm confused now, as it seems that I misread what the Rapoport book says. On page 249 of the Owen book, there is the following quote by Sorabji: "Well, well, you know that they paid me a thousand pounds for that." So I guess it should be corrected. Unfortunately, I don't have access to the Rapoport work to be completely sure of this. Toccata quarta (talk) 14:39, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * No problem. I've used the £1000 figure, cited it to Owen, and used Templates Inflation and Inflation-fn to give the correct conversion and footnote, which will remain up to date automatically. --Stfg (talk) 15:15, 9 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Personal life: "reportedly" is a bit journalistic, and I'd like to avoid it where possible (likewise "allegedly" and many other modal adverbs). Do we know that Sorabji was blackmailed, or is is it just a rumour, someone's inference, ...? --Stfg (talk) 17:43, 9 January 2013 (UTC)


 * According to the Rapoport book, Sorabji claimed that in a letter to Frank Holliday. Toccata quarta (talk) 17:56, 9 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Mature works and symphonic thought: We need to clarify some words in a couple of places here. The first is "their mutual dialectic" in the paragraph after the bullets (citing Abrahams, p. 177). "their" is dangling (it might refer either to themes or to exposition and development); in either case "mutual dialectic" needs clarifying. --Stfg (talk) 14:03, 10 January 2013 (UTC)


 * It refers to themes; Abrahams writes "the themes appear in turn and then battle with each other for domination of the texture". Toccata quarta (talk) 14:48, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * OK. I've quoted some of that, with ascription. --Stfg (talk) 15:41, 10 January 2013 (UTC)


 * The second is "all four contrapuntal forms", two paragraphs later (citing Abrahams, pp. 185–186). Is this O, I, R and RI, or what? --Stfg (talk) 14:03, 10 January 2013 (UTC)


 * The former. I wanted to add a wikilink, but WP seems to lack an article on this term. Toccata quarta (talk) 14:48, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I can't remember ever seeing them referred to as "contraputal forms". There's a description of them at Twelve-tone technique. We could link that, if you like, or we could just spell it out, replacing "all four contrapuntal forms" with "original, inverted, retrograde and inverted retrograde forms". I prefer spelling it out, I think, as Sorabji wasn't a dodecaphonist, but what do you think? --Stfg (talk) 15:41, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me. Toccata quarta (talk) 16:12, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Drafted. --Stfg (talk) 16:45, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * And now, looks good to me! :) Toccata quarta (talk) 18:21, 10 January 2013 (UTC)


 * And a third one: what does "gestural" mean at the start of the paragpraph between those two (citing Abrahams, p. 180)? --Stfg (talk) 14:15, 10 January 2013 (UTC)


 * The clearest explanation is found at : "Gestures differ from themes in that they are defined chiefly by their general outline." Toccata quarta (talk) 14:48, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * OK. I've scarequoted and then given a little parenthetical explanation cited to that. --Stfg (talk) 15:41, 10 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Yet another, in the last paragraph of this section: "The [variation set] can be viewed as his most ambitious conception". Does Roberge (1996), p. 130 actually say this? If so, we can keep this and ascribe it specifically to Roberge; otherwise we need to lose it as OR and editorialising. --Stfg (talk) 14:35, 10 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I'll look for a source. Toccata quarta (talk) 14:48, 10 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Actually, I think I'm going to nuke the passage; the paragraph already says (with a reference) that the form is "important". Toccata quarta (talk) 14:51, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I've done it. --Stfg (talk) 15:41, 10 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Also, "considered by some" won't pass GAN. considered by whom? --Stfg (talk) 14:38, 10 January 2013 (UTC)


 * The source simply has "is considered by some". Toccata quarta (talk) 14:48, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * OK. I've inserted ascription to Roberge so that we don't flop on an accusation of weaselling :) --Stfg (talk) 15:41, 10 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I do not think this is necessary. The footnote tells a reader who is the source of this information. Should the article also say "According to one birth certificate, Sorabji was born on 18 August 1892"? The attribution is there in the form of a reference. Toccata quarta (talk) 16:12, 10 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. Logically it's unnecssary, and in the case of the birth certificate, there's no reason at all. I did it there because "some consider that" is a well-known weasel phrase, but have removed it now. --Stfg (talk) 16:45, 10 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Late works: "the climax and crown ..." this is presented as a quote by Sorabji, but is in the third person. Is it really a paraphrase by Abrahams, or what? --Stfg (talk) 15:41, 10 January 2013 (UTC)


 * By the look of it, yes, he wrote it in the third person. Abrahams never used square brackets when quoting from the relevant essay. Toccata quarta (talk) 16:12, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * How funny! I've expanded the footnote with a comment, since other readers may have the same issue that I did, but it's OK to remove it if you think it unnecesssary. --Stfg (talk) 16:45, 10 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Style and inspiration, last paragraph: "enthusiasm for Italian and Sicilian culture" should presumably read "enthusiasm for Spanish and Sicilian culture", shouldn't it?, both because of what precedes it and because of Fantasia ispanica. Tango habanera isn't really either (it's Cuban) but certainly closer to Spanish than Italian. --Stfg (talk) 18:38, 10 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Fixed. Toccata quarta (talk) 20:55, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Arbitrary break
I have just made some significant structural changes to this article. They can be seen at. I'm mentioning this here, since they involved the shifting of material from a section that you had not edited yet. Best, Toccata quarta (talk) 00:06, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing it out. Looking through a diff for all the edits since I stopped yesterday:
 * why is "[they are perhaps]" in brackets like that?
 * "the tritone and the semitone" can only refer to the intervals themselves (horizontal or vertical, but anyway in close proximity), whereas "tritone and semitone relationships" is more like relationships between chord roots or tonalities, maybe even at some distance. Is Abrahams really only talking about the intervals? It seems not very notable if so, as they are pretty ubiquitous in 20th-century music.
 * that addition of a hyphen into Concertino non grosso was done by the script that OhConfucius ran last evening. I've mentioned it to OhConfucius.
 * glad we've got rid of "gestural". I scarequoted it to say that's their way of saying it, not ours, but I much prefer to lose it.
 * --Stfg (talk) 15:09, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * P.S. may I restore the link to Fernando Sor? Some readers may wonder "who he?" It's unclear why he deserves a mention if not a wikilink. --Stfg (talk) 15:15, 11 January 2013 (UTC)


 * "They are perhaps" was changed to fit into the text. The original quote reads "the nocturnes, which perhaps are his most". I could have used "described", but I already have that in the relevant sentence. Am I right in suspecting "Fredrik Ullén has said" should be changed into "Fredrik Ullén has written"?
 * That would have been fine, although "say" is sometimes used for any form of utterance. I've done something a little different, letting "describe" apply to both quotes. --Stfg (talk) 18:19, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I suppose "relationships" may be the best word; he talks about intervals (both melodic and harmonic), as well as "Combination[s] of parts at the tritone" (referring to harmonic zones) and "Tritonal cadences".
 * OK.
 * OK.
 * I don't think it can cause any harm. This appears to one of those instances when a style guideline is at odds with what many of our readers want. Toccata quarta (talk) 17:56, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It doesn't really go against the guidline. WP:OVERLINK doesn't say that everything not "particularly relevant to the topic of the article" should remain unlinked, just the ones covered in the four bullets. Sor isn't covered by any of those. "What many of our readers want" is a good way to look at it. --Stfg (talk) 14:10, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Continuing

 * "composed on the spot and without looking back": I don't understand "composed on the spot"; does "without looking back" mean without revising? --Stfg (talk) 15:43, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * "On the spot" implies no preparation (such as writing in one's head). "Without looking back" refers to revising and proofreading. Toccata quarta (talk) 18:53, 11 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Reception: "some, such as Kevin Bowyer and John Ogdon, have described him as being, in some ways, one of the greatest composers of his century,[89][180][181][182]". Wanting to get a handle on "in some ways" I checked FN180, FN181 and FN182, and I don't see that they bear out the claim. They like him, and Ogden thinks that Op Clav is one of the most worthwhile works, but not "one of the greatest composers of his century". Shall we go for a slightly less ambitious assessment? --Stfg (talk) 18:16, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I used "in some ways" mainly because there are almost no people who know Sorabji's complete musical output (since the vast majority of it has never been recorded). Hence my approach to the Ogdon statement. I do not think Andrew Clements (who is listed as a Sorabji critic) has waded through every unrecorded Sorabji score either. FN181 mentions Sorabji in the same breath as Bach and Beethoven—no small praise. FN182 mentions Sorabji in the same breath as Messiaen, one of the most revered composers of the past century. Here are some quotes to support this:
 * "Mr. Sorabji's [Opus clavicembalisticum] is widely spoken of by authoritative opinion as one of the supreme works written for the piano; only, in fact, to be compared with the great Bach work already mentioned [The Art of Fugue], and the Diabelli Variations of Beethoven, an opinion that in the present writer's estimation is fully confirmed by repeated hearings at the composer's own hands." (Edward Clarke Ashworth, reproduced in Abrahams, p. 14)
 * "have learned to know and appreciate the supreme qualities of Sorabji's work, which, as a great Scottish critic and writer has said, 'To those who know ranks among the greatest work of our time'." (ibid.)
 * "Those that are familiar with [Sorabji's] works generally fall into two polarised camps, those that adore him and those that dismiss him altogether." (Owen, p. 15) Toccata quarta (talk) 18:53, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, I've replaced it with something a bit closer to what FN180-182 say. There would be no harm in bringing some or all of your bulleted ones into paragraph 2, if you like. --Stfg (talk) 15:23, 12 January 2013 (UTC)


 * While I'm working on those, here's another. When quotations begin with square brackets, there's often a problem. I'm doing what I can to alleviate these, but:
 * "[the ability to employ a]": should there be an ellipsis here rather than brackets?
 * "The music journalist Max Harrison wrote, "the sooner Sorabji is forgotten the better", and described him as an "[all-round] '[f]ailure'".[191]" No. Harrison is quoting Rapoport for the "forgotten" quote. The only use of the word "failure" is in ""Failure" and obscurity can be a sort of luck provided they do not kill you before your time", which is rather oblique, and the word "all-round" is nowhere in the article. Unless I'm overlooking something, I think we have to lose "and described him as an "[all-round] '[f]ailure'".
 * I've also changed the Bowyer quote to be more accurate. When we use direct speech, we must use the words they use; otherwise use indirect speech. I've done a first pass of this section, but please would you go through it and check that what I've done so far is acceptable and address the inner bullets above? Please feel free to edit that section even while the GOCEinuse banner is on the article -- I'll stay away from that section for the rest of this evening to ensure no edit conflict. --Stfg (talk) 19:31, 11 January 2013 (UTC)


 * The referenced sentence has this: "[Sorabji] was one of the few composers of the time to be able to develop a unique personal style and employ it freely at any scale he chose."
 * Regarding Harrison, a detailed explanation is necessary:
 * Harrison does indeed quote that passage from Rapoport's book. However, the quote is not from Rapoport, but from Hinton. Moreover—and this is the important and shocking part—Harrison deliberately took Hinton's sentence out of context. Just in the next sentence, Hinton states that the "Sorabji was a wacko" mystique should be forgotten. By taking his statement out of context in such a way, he is effectively creating a new statement, which is his own. And even if Hinton had denounced Sorabji (which is nonsense), Harrison is endorsing that denunciation.
 * Regarding failure—others may disagree with this, but my view is that, if someone's life is a "failure", then the person is a "failure" too (unless they were forced by others to behave in ways contrary to their will).
 * Regarding "[all-round]"—Harrison indeed does not use this in his article, which is why I placed it in square brackets. If you read his review of the book Sorabji: A Critical Celebration, you will see that he criticises Sorabji's behaviour, his music, his notation, the lack of revisions of his works by him, his piano playing and his music criticism. I thus used "[all-round]" as a summary, to avoid quoting large extracts from his review. Toccata quarta (talk) 20:46, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Wow! My view is that what you have done here counts as paraphrase, and quotation marks should not be used for it. I've done something else instead, summarising the whole review in a sentence and chosen another sweet quote. See if you like this? --Stfg (talk) 15:23, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I think it works well. Toccata quarta (talk) 19:58, 12 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Innovation: similar need for clarification of "[pieces that might be seen]" --Stfg (talk) 20:00, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Having seen the exact quotation, this can be taken outside the quotation and considered paraphrase. This enables the quote itself to be as close as possible to what the quotee said. --Stfg (talk) 15:23, 12 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Innovation: "who wrote them either independently from Sorabji or decades after he had composed many of his own.[197][198]". I don't understand the contrast here, and the sources don't help. FN197 (Distler) is specific that he is discussing the Transcendental Etudes, and we might do so too, if you like. FN198 (Houdt & Peer) don't appear to mention Ligeti or Nancarrow, so I don't see its relevance here. Feel free to edit this section now too, and I'll return to it tomorrow. --Stfg (talk) 20:00, 11 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Regarding "innovation"—the original quote reads: "Other obvious influences are Scriabin, Busoni and Godowsky, but in his use of evolving patterns of immense textural and rhythmic complexity Sorabji by far exceeds all of his precursors. At least in this regard, it is tempting to see the Sorabji etudes as presages of the piano music of, say, Ligeti, Finnissy or Ferneyhough. However, these comparisons should not be taken too far." Perhaps "could" is better than "might".
 * "Contrast"—here, it is meant to highlight Sorabji's "innovations". I have fixed the second of those two references. I hope that places the use of Distler as a source in a clear context. Toccata quarta (talk) 20:46, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I have removed Distler as a duplicate of other sources. Toccata quarta (talk) 21:14, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

"There is information on performances up to its date of publication in the book Sorabji: A Critical Celebration, in the chapter Un tessuto d'esecuzioni. Information on premieres, again up to that date and so far as known can also be found in the entries on individual works in the 'Detailed Catalog' section of the chapter called 'Could you just send me a list of his works?'. The most comprehensive up to date list of performances and broadcasts be can found here, while a complete discography can be found here."
 * Partial list of performed and recorded works: removed the following paragraph:
 * from the section per WP:NOTDIR and WP:NOTADVERTISING. Also, the book is 1992, which is too old for this purpose. --Stfg (talk) 20:19, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, I think the whole section is too spammy and should be removed. --Stfg (talk) 20:23, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I had already considered nuking that section many times before. My only objection to that is that articles on works of classical music frequently contain a section like "Selected recordings". In Sorabji's case, we have only one article devoted to a piece by him (Opus clavicembalisticum), and information on recordings is thus hard to place in what is usually thought of as an "appropriate" location. Toccata quarta (talk) 20:46, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, I decided to be bold and removed it. Toccata quarta (talk) 21:14, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Great. --Stfg (talk) 15:23, 12 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Reception: "[enormous] variety and imagination": if "enormous" is part of the quote, it should have ellipsis rather than brackets; if it isn't, I suspect it may be paraphrase, and if it is, it should go outside the quote, without brackets. (This is why brackets right at the start of quotes raise questions.) --Stfg (talk) 15:23, 12 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Fixed. Toccata quarta (talk) 19:36, 12 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Early years: "His first piano lessons were reportedly given to him by his mother at an early age". Why "reportedly"? --Stfg (talk) 18:03, 12 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I do not currently have access to the Rapoport book, but writers have tended to treat the claims about Sorabji's mother with a lot of scepticism. For instance, Marc-André Roberge does not list any of her alleged occupations at . Toccata quarta (talk) 19:36, 12 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Chaleur—Poème etc: why is this written with an mdash? i.e. what is the relationship between the two parts of the name? Per MOS, we normally use mdash only as sentence punctuation, and the word-joining dash is always ndash, but I don't know what special considerations might arise here. Likewise for Gulistān—Nocturne for Piano. --Stfg (talk) 18:03, 12 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Rapoport used the spaced m dash in the titles of several of Sorabji's works in Sorabji: A Critical Celebration (published by Scolar Press), and Roberge's Sorabji Resource Site follows the same model. In accordance with WP's MOS:, I have changed them into unspaced m dashes. I think I will write to Roberge and ask him about this. Toccata quarta (talk) 19:36, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * OK. --Stfg (talk) 20:28, 12 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Is the theme of Sequentia cyclica this one? If so, we could link there from the end of the mature music section. --Stfg (talk) 18:03, 12 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, but it already has a link. Toccata quarta (talk) 19:36, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The link was only to the Dies irae page. I've directed it to the section that shows the original chant. --Stfg (talk) 20:28, 12 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm concerned that "ban" is scare quoted so many times. I understand the reason for doing it, but scare quoting is like finger quoting: once is fine but if you do it at every mention of a word, it becomes a tic. Besides, scare quoting is editorialising. Even though the ban isn't legally enforceable, that point is well made in words, and the article points out that Sorabji did a pretty good job of enforcing a ban in practice. My suggestion: scare quote it at most once, in the first occurrence in the lede, and then forget it. If you can't bear to see it without quotes, because of the unenforceability, then it would be better to think of another word that can be used without quotes. But I don't think the word implies clear legal enforceability anyway. --Stfg (talk) 09:30, 13 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I've left it enclosed in quotation marks only at the start, since the opening summary does not offer a whole lot of details about it. Toccata quarta (talk) 09:55, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Comments by Toccata quarta
Stfg, I congratulate you on the superb work you have done on this article. I'd just like to say that I have various questions and suggestions to make, but will wait until you are finished with copy editing this article on your own. I will post them here. Toccata quarta (talk) 21:14, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for that very generous comment. I'm going to do a quick second pass for tweaks and run a script to check that all hyphens and dashes are correct, and then I'm done. Looking forward to your questions and suggestions. --Stfg (talk) 15:26, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Here's one question related to our edits here: what does MOS:LQ mean by "the fragment communicates a complete sentence"? Toccata quarta (talk) 20:34, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Hmm, it's quite a strange way to put it, isn't it? I think it has to mean, as a minimum, that what's in the quote must be grammatically a complete sentence. I would prefer it to be a complete sentence in the source, too, (not, for example just one of two main clauses separated by a semicolon) but I guess it would be hard to argue that point one way or the other on the present MOS wording. I suspect there are more issues yet, but ... I did move quite a lot of full stops. Are there any that you would have preferred not moved? --Stfg (talk) 21:39, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * My understanding of MOS:LQ was, and still is, that periods belonging to quoted passages should go inside quotation marks, and the others should not. I edited the article in accordance with that. Toccata quarta (talk) 21:43, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah, you say "period". I imagine you speak American English, then? AmE and BrE differ in this, so it's understandable we should have different views of what's best. If the passage inside the quotes is not grammatically a sentence, but only the end of one, then it's hard to say whether the period "belongs" to the quote or to the complete sentence, n'est-ce pas? I retain the view that it belongs to the complete sentence, and that it would be meaningless to say that a fragment "expresses" a complete sentence if grammatically it isn't one. If you want, you could ask at WT:MOS. --Stfg (talk) 22:31, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I try to use BrE, but English is not my first language and I have probably developed my own "variant" of it. The discussion at the linked page would indeed be helpful, and I had already contemplated starting it. Toccata quarta (talk) 22:41, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

OK, here are a few:

Is "Most are" a possibility? Toccata quarta (talk) 10:11, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * "The majority are for piano solo or feature an important piano part"
 * Yes, even an improvement (plainer English). --Stfg (talk) 11:50, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

I would prefer "those letters"; Abrahams has "His letters to Philip Heseltine in particular reveal". Toccata quarta (talk) 10:11, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * "In his letters he showed"
 * Yes, agreed, "those letters" is more precise. --Stfg (talk) 11:50, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

It seems to me that you do not like metonymies. However, this segment of text (and several others) are apparently contradicted by the passage "discovered Sorabji". Toccata quarta (talk) 10:11, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * "with roots in the work of composers as diverse"
 * Well, they do have a rather short temper. Joking apart, I don't really know what I think of them. In literature, they are nice. On Wikipedia, some editors are picky, not to say pedantic. Given that you obviously know what you're doing, I have no objection to you restoring some, if you want to. Most people we copy edit for wouldn't even have heard of them. --Stfg (talk) 11:50, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Is this really idiomatic English? If yes, then just ignore this question. Toccata quarta (talk) 10:11, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * "as well as the Fourth Piano Sonata"
 * It is, and "in addition to" would also be fine. I was uncomfortable with "besides" as a preposition. The OED acknowledges that usage as current, but provides no examples later than the 1860s. That makes it fine if you want to restore it, but I don't seem to come across it very often, for some reason. --Stfg (talk) 11:50, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be good to have "legally" before "enforceable"? (Maybe these two words should be inverted?) Toccata quarta (talk) 10:11, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * "Although the ban was not enforceable"
 * Yes, it would be an improvement. "legally enforceable", not the other way round. --Stfg (talk) 11:50, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

When you first went through this passage you removed "then", but later restored it. If that means nothing, then just ignore this remark. Toccata quarta (talk) 10:11, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * "then a student at the Royal College of Music in London"
 * It was unnecessary originally, but needed to be restored when I moved "the Scottish composer" in front of the name. --Stfg (talk) 11:50, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Would "and that none of them had been published since 1931" be a possibility? (Does "since" imply that something was published in 1931?) Toccata quarta (talk) 10:11, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * "and that the latest publication of one had taken place in 1931"
 * Perhaps even an improvement. I think "since" does imply that, but very weakly. --Stfg (talk) 11:50, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Wouldn't "left it before it finished" be better? Toccata quarta (talk) 10:11, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * "Sorabji left before it finished"
 * It would be redundant and a bit awkward. "Leave" when intransitive means depart. --Stfg (talk) 11:50, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

This sentence contains "lessons" twice. How about "tutoring"? Toccata quarta (talk) 10:11, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * "His first piano lessons were reportedly given to him by his mother at an early age, and he later received help (but no lessons) from his mother's friend Emily Edroff-Smith."
 * I don't think we can replace the second "lessons" with "tutoring" (which is more general), as it would beg the question of what was the nature of the help. I thought about this and reckoned that the repetition was OK as it helps to highlight the contrast, but another way might be something like: "It is said that he started to learn the piano from his mother at an early age, and he later received help (but no lessons) from his mother's friend Emily Edroff-Smith." --Stfg (talk) 11:50, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the above. Here are further comments:

I'm concerned by "during", since the studies with Trew were not part of his non-musical education. Owen writes: "[Sorabji] had a private education, supplemented only by the London Organ School for his musical tuition with Charles A. Trew." Maybe it's not misleading, though. Toccata quarta (talk) 14:16, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * "He studied music with Charles Arthur Trew from the early 1910s until around 1915, during a private education that is thought to have ended at about the same time."
 * Well, that's useful extra information we could include. How about: "He studied music with Charles Arthur Trew at the London Organ School from the early 1910s until around 1915, during a an otherwise private education that is thought to have ended at about the same time." --Stfg (talk) 15:27, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

*"Sorabji left London in 1951 and eventually settled in The Eye, a house that he had built for himself in the village of Corfe Castle in 1956." Does the text make it clear that he moved there in 1956? It may give the impression that the house was built in 1956. Maybe I'm wrong. Toccata quarta (talk) 14:16, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * You're right. I think I got the impresssion the house was built then. One way would be: "Sorabji left London in 1951, and in 1956 settled in The Eye ...". "Eventually" would be redundant in this. --Stfg (talk) 15:27, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

*"his friends became concerned" I'm not sure if this is the most accurate way of saying it; Owen writes "There was an increasing concern amongst Sorabji's close friends and admirers". What I'm concerned about is the quantity of people involved. Toccata quarta (talk) 14:16, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * OK. I think that replacing "friends" with "close friends and admirers" would not be long enough to be copyvio. --Stfg (talk) 15:27, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

*"Sorabji presented it so sharply and decisively that he achieved his aim." I wrote "effectively achieved" because there were a few unauthorised performances of his music between Tobin and Solomon. Owen writes "Sorabji more or less achieved his aim of having complete control over the performance of his compositions". Toccata quarta (talk) 14:16, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * "Effectively" used to mean something like "to all intents and purposes" is (I think) colloquial. Perhaps "came close to achieving"? --Stfg (talk) 15:27, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Per MOS:, both the above and "64" are OK. I would prefer to restore it, since the article also has "27 variations". Toccata quarta (talk) 14:16, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * "sixty-four"
 * The 64 is compared to the 7 themes, not the 27 variations, and WP:NUMERAL (bullet 2) says "Comparable quantities should be all spelled out or all figures". This is a local effect -- you don't need to (and shouldn't) write the other 2-figure numbers in words. --Stfg (talk) 15:27, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

* What is the purpose of these two templates? Toccata quarta (talk) 14:16, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * They support links of the form ..., to avoid orphaning them. When changing a section heading, you should always add an anchor unless you are absolutely certain that no such links exist. A guideline says that somewhere, but I can't at the moment remember which. --Stfg (talk) 15:27, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

*"contain polyrhythmic writing" "Contain" is repeated in the next sentence, so "use polyrhythms" might be better. What do you think? Toccata quarta (talk) 14:16, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree. --Stfg (talk) 15:27, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Section No. 1
Here we go: *"Later, he was interested in Roman Catholicism, but was not a practising Catholic. For much of his life he practised yoga, but it is not known what branch of it." We have "practising" and "practised" in close proximity. How about "observing Catholic"? Toccata quarta (talk) 17:45, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * "practise" is the standard idiom for both, so I think it might feel wrong to use a different verb in either case. If you're happy with a more radical solution, you could replace "practising Catholic" with "churchgoer". --Stfg (talk) 18:35, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

*"his Second and Third Piano Sonatas and to the closing movement of the First Organ Symphony." First there is "his", but later there is "the". "His" seems to be more come in the article. Toccata quarta (talk) 17:45, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Both are correct. --Stfg (talk) 18:35, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

*"in addition to the Fourth Piano Sonata, he premiered his Opus clavicembalisticum and Piano Toccata No. 2 and gave a performance of his Nocturne, 'Jāmī'." Same issue as above. Toccata quarta (talk) 17:45, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Likewise. Actually, just "he premiered Opus clavicembalisticum" would be better. --Stfg (talk) 18:35, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Is "a thickening" necessary? It's not something schematic. Toccata quarta (talk) 17:45, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * "The movements continue with a stretto and conclude with a section emphasising augmentation and a thickening of lines into chords."
 * Interesting. It's your word, and I understood it. Actually, just "... and a thickening of the texture" would be OK, wouldn't it?

*"in the words of musicologist Simon John Abrahams" Shouldn't "the" be placed before "musicologist"? Toccata quarta (talk) 17:45, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Either is correct. Placing "the" in front would be more consistent with your style elsewhere, though. --Stfg (talk) 18:35, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

*"The only piece of his" Would it be OK to remove the last two words? Toccata quarta (talk) 17:45, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, it would be better to remove it. --Stfg (talk) 18:35, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

*"Baroque" What are the rules for capitalising this word? Baroque music has "Baroque era", "baroque music" and "Baroque music". Toccata quarta (talk) 17:45, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I spent half an hour looking for them and couldn't find anything clear-cut. OED online is playing up today; Merriam-Webster says "sometimes capitalized". Wikipedia articles seem to capitalize it more often than not, but not consistently. My feeling is that it's good to use lower case for the general sense as in "a book filled with baroque descriptions" (from Merriam-Webster), but to capitalize it when it refers to the Baroque era or to an artistic style belonging to that era. --Stfg (talk) 18:35, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

*"and on 17 June 1929 bigamously married" Should there be "he" before "bigamously"? That seem to be the model across the article. Toccata quarta (talk) 17:45, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Both are grammatically correct, but here I feel that it flows more nicely without the "he" in this case. It's to do with the closeness of the link between what's before and what's after the "and". --Stfg (talk) 18:35, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

*"fusion of tonality and atonality into a different approach to the relationships between harmonies" I feel that "the" could be removed. Toccata quarta (talk) 17:45, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * To me it feels better with it in, but I need to think about it for a while. More on it later. --Stfg (talk) 18:35, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Now I think I understand why, though it's extremely subtle. As the British Council website says here: "We use the definite article in front of a noun when we believe the hearer/reader knows exactly what we are referring to." This definite article assumes that the reader knows that there exist relationships between harmonies. Since we're talking about a fusion of tonality and atonality, at this point should assume we're addressing ourselves to those readers that are aware that such relationships exist. --Stfg (talk) 19:41, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

*"His writings also give an idea" Since this is the beginning of a paragraph, shouldn't "his" be replaced with "Sorabji's"? Toccata quarta (talk) 17:45, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Not compulsory, but you can if you like. If you do, it has more of a flavour of starting a new thought, so it would be best to get rid of the "also". --Stfg (talk) 18:35, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Section No. 2
Thanks for the above. Here are a few more: Shouldn't we use the singular here? Toccata quarta (talk) 18:52, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * "of figures such as Debussy"
 * "... elevating him to the ranks of a figure such as Debussy"? No, it doesn't work. --Stfg (talk) 19:13, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

*"They are considered among" This differs from "are considered by many to be among". Toccata quarta (talk) 18:52, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * "They are considered to be among" could be better, but I think "by many" is just verbiage. Is there anyone who considers them to be among his outwardly less virtuosic and musically more ambitious works? (Or even, are there many who have any opinion at all about the relative qualities of his works?) --Stfg (talk) 19:13, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

*"criticised Sorabji's compositions, performance" I would prefer "piano playing", since he could know only his private recordings. Toccata quarta (talk) 18:52, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * OK. --Stfg (talk) 19:13, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

*"he came to admire and be inspired by it again." I've never felt comfortable with this passage, but perhaps without good reason. Toccata quarta (talk) 18:52, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It's fine. But just before it, I don't much like coherency. It exists, but I feel coherence would be more normal. --Stfg (talk) 19:13, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Section No. 3 (just one bullet but lots of text) coming next. Toccata quarta (talk) 18:52, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Section No. 3
Once again, thanks for the response. And, at last:

When you were copy editing this article, one problem appeared in the paragraph about the fugues: the mention of the "main section" got deleted. This, however, enabled me to realise another problem: the lack of an explanation of the relationship between "exposition" and "development section" in Sorabji's fugal writing. To the best of my knowledge, Sorabji never presented two subjects in a fugal exposition. Therefore, if he has a fugue on more than one subject, he follows the pattern 1st section – 2nd section – repeat first two sections as necessary – 3rd section – 4th section. So, here is a revised version of the paragraph's opening:


 * Sorabji's fugues, the most atonal of his works, generally follow traditional methods. After a theme has been presented in an exposition, there follows a development section in which the theme (and countersubjects, particularly in the earlier fugues ) are developed in their original form and in inversion, retrograde and retrograde inversion.

I'm almost certain that not all of Sorabji's fugal themes are accompanied by multiple countersubjects; they can be as many as four, but I'm certain there are cases with only one. I'm not sure how to incorporate this into the text, though. "Subsidiary material" is an expression used by Abrahams, but I don't want to commit a copyvio. Toccata quarta (talk) 19:30, 13 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I deleted "main section" because I felt that it was an editorial view of the priorities of the sections. Now, in your new version, you have the relationship between exposition and development in better shape. This is already a big improvement.


 * About themes: Fugues have can have three kinds of theme: subjects, countersubjects and occasionally supplementary themes employed in episodes. I think all your uses of the term refer to subjects, in which case I would use this term consistently.


 * About countersubjects: it's often understood that a passage in a voice qualifies as a countersubject only if it is used repeatedly in counterpoint with the subject. There exist fugues in which there is no countersubject at all in this sense: the entries may in canon or simply accompanied by free counterpoint (using motives from the subject or not, as the case may be). So I misunderstood the parenthesis to mean that countersubjects were found more often in Sorabji's earlier fugues than his later ones. If there is always at least one countersubject in his fugues, it might be clearer to relegate the exact number of countersubjects (which is very technical for most readers) to a note.


 * The way he treats multiple subjects by having an exposition for each seems to me both unusual enough and understandable enough to promote to the main article. Here's an effort to incorporate these thoughts:


 * Sorabji's fugues, the most atonal of his works, generally follow traditional methods. After a subject and its countersubject(s) have been presented in an exposition, there follows a development section in which this material is developed in its original form and in inversion, retrograde and retrograde inversion. If a fugue has more than one subject, then Sorabji repeats this pattern for each one.


 * What do you think so far? Could you show me anything in the source that you'd like to work in? --Stfg (talk) 20:40, 13 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I like it, but "particularly in his earlier fugues" actually referred to the fact that the "quadruple" treatment of countersubjects is more common in his earlier fugues, not that multiple countersubjects are more common in his early fugues. Toccata quarta (talk) 21:10, 13 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Stfg, I do not know whether you are still active on Wikipedia, but if you are, then I would appreciate your help in removing possible problems out of the following rewritten paragraph. I think it will be the last substantial modification of the article that I will do before the upcoming GAN. Thank you!


 * Sorabji's fugues, the most atonal of his works, generally follow traditional methods. After a subject and between one to four countersubjects have been presented in an exposition, there follows a development section in which the subject (and countersubject[s], particularly in the earlier fugues ) are usually developed in their original form and in inversion, retrograde and retrograde inversion. (If a fugue is written on more than one subject, then Sorabji repeats this pattern as many times as there are subjects.) The movements continue with a stretto and conclude with a section emphasising augmentation and thickening of lines into chords. The fugues are more conservative than most of his output, in that they rarely use polyrhythms. They can contain up to six subjects, and it is these that mark Sorabji's fugues as different from most others. Some of the subjects are among his most unconventional melodic creations, lacking the general change of direction that characterises most melodies; others are possibly the longest ever conceived. This has led some people either to treat them with suspicion or to criticise them.
 * Toccata quarta (talk) 10:20, 22 January 2013 (UTC)


 * This is fine. I thought the best procedure was to copy it into the article and then copy edit in situ. Hope that's OK. (I'm still looking in at least once a day, and will keep this article on my watch list until the GA review is complete.) --Stfg (talk) 13:18, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Very much indeed, but I disagree with the removal of "usually", since the "quadruple" treatment is not found in all fugues. Toccata quarta (talk) 13:37, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I didn't remove "usually" -- it's still there. I copied the above in one edit with no change, and then did this, is all.
 * It seems that I was hallucinating; my apologies. Toccata quarta (talk) 14:41, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Subsequent edits

 * "an observant Catholic" (or even "observing") is too unidiomatic. Really strange. If you want "an X Catholic", it really has to be X=practising. --Stfg (talk) 10:59, 19 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I went by what suggests, but my dictionary tells me I should use "of". How about "he did not observe this religion"? Toccata quarta (talk) 11:27, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I know what "observant" means, but it's unidiomatic when used like that. The word is practising. I suggested "churchgoer" before. If you don't like that, I suggest looking for another way to describe what he did with yoga. Personally, since the reptition is of different forms of practise, I don't think it matters at all. Avoiding repetition shouldn't go so far as to replace it with unidiomatic writing. --Stfg (talk) 11:49, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I hope you won't mind, but I've restored "practising" -- it's really the only word. An observant Catholic would be a Catholic who is good at noticing things. (The "observant of" construction is old-fashioned and verbose.) "Observing Catholic" would probably be understood, but using the wrong word like this makes the writing look self-conscious. I think the use of (different forms of) "practise" in adjacent sentences is acceptable. --Stfg (talk) 13:24, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Another possibility would be to remove the sentence's second half, but it would end up being rather "stubbyish". Toccata quarta (talk) 13:37, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, just a little. What does the source say about this interest, Depending on that, it might be possible to say something along the lines of "..., although he did not pursue this interest very far".
 * Well, I have already changed it. However, Owen (p. 105) has: "Sorabji was not a Catholic, but he was intrigued by and sympathetic towards Catholicism." Toccata quarta (talk) 14:25, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I saw the change. With the source saying this, you could append "..., although he did not take it up" if you like. --Stfg (talk) 14:48, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Good idea! Toccata quarta (talk) 14:56, 22 January 2013 (UTC)


 * "... considered his best work" is OK, but "considered by some his best work" flows badly (also if replacing some with other words, like many). That's why I put in the "to be". --Stfg (talk) 10:59, 19 January 2013 (UTC)


 * OK, I will amend it. Toccata quarta (talk) 11:27, 19 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Just checking: it currently says that all four sections (exposition, development, stretto, conclusion) are repeated for each fugue subject. Is that the intention? --Stfg (talk) 20:37, 23 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Indeed. Toccata quarta (talk) 20:59, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Just wanted to be sure. (It almost seems like multiple fugues rather than one fugue with multiple subjects :)) --Stfg (talk) 21:33, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Stfg, I apologise for making this such a long process, but before the GAN nomination, I still have a few issues to raise. I thought I would be able to deal with them on my own, but it seems that is not the case.
 * Nothing to apologise for. --Stfg (talk) 13:39, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

*"His toccatas are more modest in scope and take the structure of Busoni's work of the same name as their starting point." I originally put "toccatas, in turn, are", to highlight the comparison with the variation sets. Do both versions work? Toccata quarta (talk) 09:47, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * No, for two reasons: "in turn" is a very vague phrase that doesn't do the job you're asking of it (or any job, really); here, "more modest ..." already makes the contrast quite clearly; to highlight it further is like bolding or italicising key points: it makes it look as if you underestimate the reader's intelligence. --Stfg (talk) 13:39, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

*"A state of frenzy is reflected" I used "also" here as I wanted to "intensify" one of the points being made. What do you think? Toccata quarta (talk) 09:47, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Why do you want to intensify it? That's editorializing. By the way, if you ever want to take this to FAC, redundant "also"s are among the things that get hit. --Stfg (talk) 13:39, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

*"The images consisted mostly of still photographs of his house" Is "The images in the documentary" or "The images in it" necessary? Toccata quarta (talk) 09:47, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Not absolutely necessary, but inserting "in it" would be an improvement, I think. --Stfg (talk) 13:39, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

*"their athematism" Why "their"? The lead, for instance, has "characterised by its frequent use of polyrhythms". Toccata quarta (talk) 09:47, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Parallel structure. If you just write "They are characterised mainly by their exploration of the single-movement format and athematism.", then it's unclear whether athematism is governed by "by" or by "of". That problem isn't present in that sentence in the lead. I've actually inserted an extra "by" to make the structure clearer. --Stfg (talk) 13:39, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I meant that athematism is something that these works have in common—a characteristic. Toccata quarta (talk) 14:15, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I understood, and including "by their" expresses that unambiguously. --Stfg (talk) 14:43, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * In retrospect, I think "exploration" adds nothing to the text; how about "They are characterised mainly by their use of the single-movement format and by their athematism."? Toccata quarta (talk) 15:03, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * That's fine. --Stfg (talk) 16:08, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

*"his own" This is used four times in the article, and I suspect (which probably means nothing) that its third appearance in the article should be changed to simply "his". Toccata quarta (talk) 09:47, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, both the third and the fourth are redundant, and I've removed them. "his own" is very dubious: a friendly reader will understand the intention to disambiguate, but a critical reviewer would be entitled to point out that actually it doesn't -- the "his" is just as dangling as before. For the first case, you might consider removing the words "his own piece" and redlinking Le jardin parfumé: Poem for Piano Solo, or perhaps even making a stub for it. The second seems harder to avoid. --Stfg (talk) 13:39, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

*"classified" I'm not pleased with the presence of this word in the article, since it appears to indicate similarities to nocturnes by other composers. How about "called" or "labelled"? Toccata quarta (talk) 09:47, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It doesn't really indicate that, and "almost always" is probably warning enough, but "labelled" would be just as good, if you prefer it. --Stfg (talk) 13:39, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

*"when his works were being published for the first time" I would like to put "some of" after "when", to make it clear that not everything that he was composing was getting published. However, it might give the impression that some of his works had already had their "ink premiere". Additionally, the article already mentions that Sorabji had 14 of his works published between 1921 and 1931, so this may be unnecessary. Toccata quarta (talk) 09:47, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The sentence as written doesn't imply that all his works were being published; it means the same as "works of his" (but don't use that -- it's colloquial). Adding "some of" would create the misimpression you indicate. I think these words are better kept in, to provide context, and I don't think there's a problem.

*"music(al) criticism" The lead uses the longer form, the body the shorter one. Toccata quarta (talk) 09:47, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Hehe. Well, the short form is more precise. The long form might mean film criticism set to music --Stfg (talk) 13:39, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

*"Bowyer counts Sorabji's organ works, together with those of Messiaen, as among the 'Twentieth Century Works of Genius'." Somehow I feel this statement is less potent than it could be. Just because something is a "work of genius" does not mean "genius" is that unusual. Bowyer's text places Sorabji's organ works in a very exclusive category. How about "among the few"? Toccata quarta (talk) 09:47, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It's as strong as it ought to be. The source says "Zu den sehr wenigen Orgelpartituren, die man zu den „Twentieth Century Works of Genius“ zählen kann, gehören die Orgelwerke von Messiaen, die Variations on a Recitative von Schönberg, Commotio von Carl Nielsen und die Orgelwerke von Sorabji." so he's only "one of the few" when it comes to organ works. This is cited from the Sorabji Archive, which is scarcely an impartial source, and the list, to be blunt, is just someone's personal preferences. Where are Vierne and Marcel Dupré, for example? Sorabji greater than them? --Stfg (talk) 13:39, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The source is Kevin Bowyer, I would say. As regards rankings: I think one should keep in mind that Bowyer is a great amateur of musical modernism (his repertoire certainly shows that), so his picks may be influenced by that. Toccata quarta (talk) 14:15, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, perhaps we agree on the weight. What we have sourced is that part of what Bowyer says that the Sorabji Archive chooses to quote :) --Stfg (talk) 14:43, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

This should be it; I will almost certainly make the GAN today. Toccata quarta (talk) 09:47, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Good luck --Stfg (talk) 13:39, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks! :) Toccata quarta (talk) 14:15, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * By the way, are there any public domain images of Sorabji that could be used in the lead? --Stfg (talk) 13:43, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I have corresponded with Roberge on this matter, and I have to say there are quite a few hassles in one's way; impossible to contact the right people, impossible to find out when a photographer died. I will try my luck. Toccata quarta (talk) 14:15, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

pronunciation guide
Would be a welcome addition. Double sharp (talk) 15:19, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
 * For Sorabji's name, or for all non-English words used in this article as well? Toccata quarta (talk) 08:47, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Reference for Abrahams
The book by Abrahams is referenced extensively, but unless I'm missing it, I can't see an actual reference for what the book is? Tonto1979 (talk) 14:05, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * It's a Ph.D. dissertation on Sorabji's music focused mainly on his piano compositions. Toccata quarta (talk) 17:40, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Kaikhosru Shapurji Sorabji. 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://archive.is/20130117012653/http://sarasota.anythingarts.com/profiles/blogs/new-music-new-college-crossroads-4-the-meeting-of-the-minds-festi to http://sarasota.anythingarts.com/profiles/blogs/new-music-new-college-crossroads-4-the-meeting-of-the-minds-festi
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131203002036/http://www.cmc.ie/articles/article1353t.html to http://www.cmc.ie/articles/article1353t.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) 04:01, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Ethnicity in the lead
There have recently been some contested edits (including reversals) on Sorabji's nationality and ethnicity as described (or not) in the lead. Wikipedia policy provides guidance on this matter, with MOS:ETHNICITY stating, "Ethnicity, religion, or sexuality should generally not be in the lead unless it is relevant to the subject's notability." Sorabji is best known for his music, but a lot can be said about his ethnicity and, indeed, his sexuality. An old (and since debunked) part of the folklore surrounding Sorabji is the narrative of the "Spanish–Italian–Sicilian" ancestry of his mother, which is reflected in several of his compositions. His general antipathy towards England, which grew out of its treatment of foreigners and his own experiences of racial harassment as a member of an ethnic minority, is a recurring theme in his writings. Sorabji placed importance on ancestry in his writings, and part of Sorabjian scholarship discusses his sense of otherness and construction of a non-English identity (see Owen's dissertation, cited in the article, as well as Sean McMenamin's thesis K. S. Sorabji on Neglected Works: Counter-Canon as Cultural Critique).

The proposed "Anglo-Indian" description doesn't quite match the sources used, which identify Sorabji as an English composer, but there might be room for including his ancestry later in the lead. An argument could also be made for mentioning Sorabji's sexual orientation there, it likewise being discussed in his writings and the scholarly literature. I would therefore propose the following addition to the lead (to be used as the beginning of the second paragraph):


 * Born to an English mother and a Parsi Indian father, Sorabji expressed a sense of otherness early in his life. As a homosexual and feeling alienated from English society, he was educated privately and had a lifelong tendency to seclusion.

If you are OK with the content, then I will add it to the article. And if you have any suggestions on improving the wording, by all means do share them. Toccata quarta (talk) 14:10, 14 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Since no objections have been voiced (either by the users who are watching this page or those involved in the recent content dispute), I will update the lead to incorporate the text above and reorganize it a little bit, in order to have less short paragraphs there. Should the update prove contentious, we can always discuss it here. Thank you. Toccata quarta (talk) 19:34, 22 December 2019 (UTC)