Talk:Malcolm Arnold/Archive 1

Request for removal
Four paragraphs I think should be removed, and will unless there are objections:

First three because they are trivial compared to many other aspects of his biography:


 * He was also the patron of the Rochdale Youth Orchestra until his death in September 2006.


 * The Leicestershire Schools Symphony Orchestra made the first commercial recording of Divertimento for the Pye label in July 1967 and performed many of his works. Arnold also conducted the orchestra in a 1963 De Montfort Hall concert.


 * Malcolm Arnold wrote the Trevelyan Suite to mark the opening of Trevelyan College, University of Durham. His daughter was among the first intake of students.

They do not give any indication about the importance of Arnold's association with any of these groups, nor why they should be selected among the many conducting appearances and commissions in his career.

The fourth paragraph I want to remove is incredibly in need of citation:


 * From the early 1970s he was snubbed by large sections of the British music establishment, notably BBC Radio 3 and the Proms. They disliked his success with film music, and that his own work was melodic when atonal was the fashion.

It cannot stand as NPOV without citations of quotations from BBC Radio 3 and the Proms saying that they disliked his success and snubbed him. Even an "Arnold asserted that he was snubbed" needs a citation.

--Myke Cuthbert 03:19, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I can see where you are coming from, and think you have a point - on the need for a citation I agree 100% (I think the paragraph is probably correct, but it is too strong a statement to stand without citation).

I think 'first commercial recording' is a notable event for any classical work, and personally would like to see a list of all first commercial recordings. I think that the Trevelyan connexion is made by the reference to his daughter being one of the first students there - there may be something to be made also of the Cornish roots of the Trevelyan family and Arnold's residence in Cornwall. DuncanHill 03:37, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I guess I agree that the first commercial recording is notable, but it seems to me more notable for the ensemble than for the composer, since, as you note there's no larger context that gives the first commercial recordings made of other works. Agreed, that it's not inappropriate information to maintain, but it does not make the article look professional.  I doubt a published encyclopedia article of similar length on Arnold would consider mentioning this information.  But I'll leave it in on your recommendation, perhaps to spur further work on the composer.  --Myke Cuthbert 06:10, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Career highlights
Somehow this section is not very useful. How does one define the term anyway?

Perhaps better to integrate it in the main biography (it needs an overhaul anyway) and get rid of it. Objections? Beckus 19:49, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Did some cleanup with the biography section. Needs much, much more work. When I find the time. Beckus (talk) 13:48, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

MILITARY CAREER
Article states: "In 1944 he volunteered for military service but after he found out the army wanted to put him in a military band, he shot himself in the foot to get back to civilian life. " Conscription had been introduced in the UK before 1939, Arnold would have been liable for this in 1939 at 18. He had been a Conscientous Objector and was discharged by the tribunal (he was a strict methodist) at the time of his call up. He then decided to offer himself for service in 1944. However, he was already showing signs of mental instability and so the 'gun accident' was ignored by the authorities as he was a volunteer. Tony S 79.72.59.38 (talk) 14:33, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Composer project review
I've reviewed this article as part of the Composers project review of its B-class articles. This article is a weak B-class; it's poor in some biographic and musical details, and in many ways resembles a promotional biography. The subject deserves better. My full review is on the comments page; questions or comments can be left here or on my talk page.  Magic ♪piano 03:18, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment
Disappointing that there is virtually no discussion of Arnold's music, especially of his symphonies. I see that the various articles on his music are also little more than stubs. In this context the list of his honours is grotesquely disproportionate. Also btw his contibutions to the Hoffnung concerts (e.g. the Grand Grand Overture op. 57) are not highlighted. Really as the article stands it is very long and extremely 'thin' - if it is B-class, it is only just!--Smerus (talk) 11:56, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Return to the podium
''He also made one final, triumphant return to the Proms podium (although not as conductor) in 1991.

What does this mean? In what capacity did he return to the podium? -- JackofOz (talk) 20:52, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Inline citations?
How to handle inline citations on this page? I tried to add a reference [1] but then noticed that there's no reference template in place. Nor do the lists of "Bibliography", "Obituaries" etc seem conducive to Harvard style citation. So for the time being, I've added in the reference template, hoping that somebody will pick up on this issue. MistyMorn (talk) 17:18, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

table of contents
I added the Table of Contents to this talk page to make the sections easier to locate, but I don't understand why it's also displaying its first six entries, which are not "Sections" on this page. Can anyone fix this? Thanks. Milkunderwood (talk) 19:41, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It's from Talk:Malcolm Arnold/Comments, which could be merged into this talk page now. BencherliteTalk 19:55, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I figured something like that, but have no idea how to "merge" or otherwise fix it - thanks. Milkunderwood (talk) 19:58, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Contents moved here and subpage deleted. BencherliteTalk 20:24, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks - before, clicking on one of those in the TOC appeared dead, and didn't connect to anything. Milkunderwood (talk) 20:32, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Recordings of Chamber Music
Since I have these three discs at hand, I thought it would be useful to add the detailed contents of the Nash Ensemble's recordings of much of Arnold's chamber music under the Malcolm Arnold section of this article, for the particular benefit of players who might be looking for selections featuring their particular instrument. If there's any objection to my formatting, I invite comments here. Thanks. Milkunderwood (talk) 19:08, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Done a bit of reformatting.--MistyMorn (talk) 00:30, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Baby in the bath water?
I was a little concerned about the good faith removal today (by user:Op47) of previously tagged unsupported "opinions". IMO, some of the material just needed some rephrasing with suitable supporting inline citations (a task I might have addressed myself had I not been indisposed when the sentences were tagged in August). As the large header tag implies, the article does contain a list of references (sources) but much inline citation is currently missing. And dealing with that takes time...--MistyMorn (talk) 17:40, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * MistyMorn,
 * 1) Thankyou for sorting out the reference that I added.
 * 2) Regarding the deletions that I made, I thought I had waited a reasonable length of time and seeing no action I thought I was justified in taking action. I did look through the references given and saw no justification for the challenged statements in the references given. The perception that I have is that the statements made were false and hence it was unlikely that supporting references could be found. I found the statement about Malcolm Arnold being popular with amateur musicians especially vexing since I am an amateur musician and I especially dislike Malcolm Arnold and I notice from comments made by my colleagues that it would appear that Malcolm Arnold is particularly unpopular. My searches on the internet revealed nothing to suggest that Malcolm Arnold is actually popular, the pro Arnold websites talk about him being under rated, which implies they acknowlege his lack of popularity and one website even devoted itself to hating Malcolm Arnold. I assure you that if I find anything to support said statements then I will happily re-instate them. Op47 (talk) 23:22, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your reply. I'll try to verify the removed content in the coming days. My impression was that some of it may have seemed implausible either because it was poorly expressed or because it was not supported by inline citation. For instance, Arnold was a well known Hoffnung Festival personality. Regards,--MistyMorn (talk) 23:45, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Help! List of works as separate article?
I currently find the main Malcolm Arnold page hard to navigate and consequently tricky to consult or edit. I've therefore tagged the lengthy list of 'Works' with a "split section" template, in keeping with summary style. However, I note that there's already a 'Compositions by Malcolm Arnold' Category, which leaves me a bit confused. As I mentioned above, I also feel uncertain about citation style in an article containing multiple reference sections arranged by genre (I'm not 'bold' about making changes, since discovering that some editors may feel rather strongly about the need to maintain a given citation style). In short... Help!--MistyMorn (talk) 17:53, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it would be a smart move to make a split. If you follow the pattern used in the Mozart article then I don't think you can go far wrong. As far as I can tell, as long as the list of compositions is just a list of compositions then I think there should be no need for citations at all. What are you going to cite? If you want to be super safe then add the disclaimer that the list does not purport to be complete. The category page is an auto generated page. If for example you were to write an article on one of his symphonies then you could tag it as being a member of the category "Compositions by Malcolm Arnold" and then it appears on the category page without you having to edit the category page. The advantage of the list is that you have control over the formatting. Also, if there is a composition not worthy of writing its own article then it can still appear on the list even if it does not appear on the category page. The disadvantage is that today, many compositions will not have their own page but tomorrow they will and you will have to alter the list to point to it as well. Indeed, if you put the links on now then all that would happen is the text would show in Red and not Blue, as a reminder to do the individual articles. Hope that helps Op47 (talk) 18:35, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much for the helpful reply. I'll be looking into the details as soon as I get there...--MistyMorn (talk) 08:28, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I made a start since MagicPiano asked for this over 3 years ago. Op47 (talk) 13:01, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Fantastic, thanks Op47! I've already made a note of the "in use" template you applied during the split, and will try to do the same on another, apparently less challenging page (free from those composition category listings which were worrying me). And now I can get back to annoying you on this composer you don't even like... Thanks again--MistyMorn (talk) 13:06, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Composers Project Assessment of Malcolm Arnold: 2008-12-13
This is an assessment of article Malcolm Arnold by a member of the Composers project, according to its assessment criteria. This review was done by.

If an article is well-cited, the reviewer is assuming that the article reflects reasonably current scholarship, and deficiencies in the historical record that are documented in a particular area will be appropriately scored. If insufficient inline citations are present, the reviewer will assume that deficiencies in that area may be cured, and that area may be scored down.

Adherence to overall Wikipedia standards (WP:MOS, WP:WIAGA, WP:WIAFA) are the reviewer's opinion, and are not a substitute for the Wikipedia's processes for awarding Good Article or Featured Article status.

Origins/family background/studies
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?
 * ok

Early career
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?
 * no personal details, and we do not know when he started composing

Mature career
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?
 * no personal details

List(s) of works
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.
 * list is probably complete; needs to be split off
 * Done Op47 (talk) 12:56, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Didnt he also do the music for the Heroes of Telemark? Shouldnt this be mentioned? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.232.79.132 (talk) 17:41, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Critical appreciation
Does the article discuss his/her style, reception by critics and the public (both during his/her life, and over time)?
 * minimal stylistic discussion; no significant critical appreciation

Illustrations and sound clips
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.)
 * one image (fair-use claimed copyrighted image), no sound.

References, sources and bibliography
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?
 * Article lists references; no inline cites.

Structure and compliance with WP:MOS
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.)
 * footer is poorly structured

Things that may be necessary to pass a Good Article review

 * Article requires more inline citations (WP:CITE)
 * Article footer material needs organization (WP:LAYOUT)
 * Article needs (more) images and/or other media (MOS:IMAGE)
 * Images and media have copyright/fair-use issues (WP:IUP or more specific GA/FA criteria)
 * Article prose needs work (WP:MOS) (see summary)

Summary
This is a poorly organized biography that reads a bit like somewhat elaborate promotional material, with a few extra details thrown in. This bio is lacking in personal details (or evidence that the subject was stingy in revealing them), as well as formative information like when he started composing, and what is early compositions were like. The material is poorly organized; the discussion of his works is pasted into the middle of the bio, and not really well integrated. While popular reception of his works is mentioned, critical appreciation is lack. His works are listed (presumably a complete list); the list is long enough it should be in a separate article.

The article's footer sections are not really per WP:LAYOUT. The Obituaries section should be in External Links, since all of the references are in fact external. There are no inline citations; these would be needed for formal review. It is unclear whether a publicity image use is really justified. (I am not an expert on WP:IUP.)

Article is B-class, but will benefit from substantial improvement.  Magic ♪piano 03:15, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Losses in the early 1960s
I am sorry you took out the comments on his losses in the early 1960's as they are right and must have been hard to bear.I am surprised by the emphasis put on lis later life as he was far more cative musically before 1980 than after it

I would like also to correct the statement at the' beginning of the article that he has 'a reputation as a composer of light music'.He is one of the most creative 20th century serious composers, as well as being prolific and talented in writing for ballet- more commissions for the Royal Ballet than any other composer- in film, chamber works as well as 9 symphonies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 135rtd (talk • contribs) 19:09, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * That is your opinion. On Wikipedia we deal in cited facts. If the world in general has only written about his later life then that is what will be written about here. In Malcolm Arnold's case, it is rather important because a lot of uncited and untrue rubbish has been put on this page in the past. Op47 (talk) 15:20, 1 August 2014 (UTC)