Talk:Pierre Boulez/Archive 2

How many Notations completed?
'His early twelve miniatures for piano, Notations (1945), was, since the 1970s, in the process of being expanded as an orchestral cycle. At least seven movements were completed before Boulez's death, although only five have been performed' This may be right. A further two Notations have been rumoured to be near completion - and were scheduled for performance some years ago, later cancelled. But what's the source that the rumours are true? Dmass (talk) 13:52, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think we can claim this without a source. My memory, and this is confirmed by the work list on the Universal Edition website, is that Notations 1–4 were orchestrated in 1978 (revised 1984 and 1987), then much later Notations 7 appeared in orchestral form (1997, revised 2004). Has someone perhaps erroneously assumed from this that nos. 5 and 6 must also have been orchestrated? --Deskford (talk) 15:08, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I've just found the reference to the scheduled premiere of V and VI: 'From the Chicago Sun-Times - March 22, 2006 - Pierre Boulez may be one of classical music's most important composers, but he is notoriously reluctant to sign off on a finished composition. To hardly anyone's surprise, the Chicago Symphony Orchestra has postponed the world premiere of Boulez's "Notations for Orchestra V and VI scheduled for May 25-27. The CSO and conductor Daniel Barenboim will perform "Notations I-V and VII in their place. The "Notations series is an orchestration of short piano pieces Boulez composed in 1945 and began orchestrating decades later. Delays have plagued their first performances by the CSO. The orchestra said "Notations V and VI will be "rescheduled on the CSO subscription series once they are completed.'' Dmass (talk) 14:00, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 one external links on Pierre Boulez. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080622180808/http://inspiredminds.de:80/detail.php?id=30 to http://www.inspiredminds.de/detail.php?id=30
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080718203715/http://www.bbc.co.uk/proms/2008/whatson/1508.shtml to http://www.bbc.co.uk/proms/2008/whatson/1508.shtml
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20160212093455/http://www.uap.ualberta.ca/UAP.asp?LID=41&bookID=687 to http://www.uap.ualberta.ca/UAP.asp?LID=41&bookID=687
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20141016124414/http://www.swr.de/swr2/festivals/donaueschingen/programme/1921-1997/-/id=2136956/nid=2136956/did=3459908/jy5c3d/index.html to http://www.swr.de/swr2/festivals/donaueschingen/programme/1921-1997/-/id=2136956/nid=2136956/did=3459908/jy5c3d/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 19:34, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

New Article Asserting Boulez's Homosexuality
The most recent issue of Contemporary Music Review which focuses on the summer Darmstadt sessions of the 50's and 60's contains an article jointly written by David Osmond-Smith and Paul Attinello which asserts Boulez's homosexuality. I was wondering if anyone else has read this and has thoughts on it. The authors preface the article by stating that much of the information was obtained by casual conversations with listed Darmstadt composers (Attinello). The article discusses Boulez and then Bussotti's interaction with other homosexual and heterosexual composers at Darmstadt. David Osmond-Smith asserts Boulez's homosexuality in the following section: It is the purpose of this article to suggest the withholding and trace the subsequent assertion of a particularly telling set of interpretive associations within the music of the post-war European generation through examining the interactions between two gay (or, to more accurately reflect the language of the era, homosexual) composers who first came to public attention a decade apart: Pierre Boulez and Sylvano Bussotti. Both came to prominence at a time remarkable for its extreme homophobia. The stylistic vocabulary pioneered by the first strongly influenced the second; but their decisions as to how best to direct the listening mind in its responses differed profoundly. Although Boulez has always maintained a determined defense of his own privacy, he has acknowledged that his first, vivid outburst of works which, even today, maintain their stylistic authority over the fifties avant-garde were produced immediately subsequent to an intense, violently sexual relationship. He has also acknowledged, en passant, his own homosexuality. It is, of course, speculative to assume that this relationship was therefore with another man—a young man may try many paths—but if this was the case, certain features of his early artistic development fall into a pattern that make Sylvano Bussotti’s reaction to them a decade later seem less than quixotic.

http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/titles/07494467.html

Any thoughts? Since there are no citations, I assume that Osmond-Smith is claiming to have garnished this information from the aforementioned talks with other composers, although the claim may be legitimate since Osmond-Smith is a rather significant scholar on the Post-WWII Avant-garde. Joan Peyser does discuss Boulez's mentioned early relationship and characterizes it similarly emotionally as Osmond-Smith, although as I recall she makes little discussion of Boulez's sexuality and uses the incident to further discussion of Boulez's rather removed manner. I'm more interested in Boulez's music than his sexual orientation, but as this was a topic of discussion before I'm interested to know what people think about this and perhaps someone will want to go further with this new weightier source. EFH 22:13, 1 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Through the magic of Wikipedia the original The Guardian source which says "He was devotedly served from the early 1970s by his valet, Hans Messmer" has been transferred into: "He moved to Baden-Baden in the 1960s with his lifelong partner, Hans Messmer, whom he sometimes referred to as his valet". So what does Norman Lebrecht actually say on p.183? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:14, 7 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Norman Lebrecht is cited as the source for this information and it's right that this was what he said on his Slipped Disc website immediately after Boulez's death was announced. But in a more recently published article posted on the same site on 25th February http://slippedisc.com/2016/02/untold-history-pierre-boulez-and-the-nuclear-deterrent/ he is much more ambiguous: 'Among musicians Boulez was a small boy in a playground, sharing in-jokes, revelling in low gossip. There was nothing austere or remote about him. On the contrary, he needed congenial company, craving it perhaps as a substitute for more intimate relationships. Glacially private where the personal was concerned, he shared his home with Hans Messmer, whom he referred to alternately as his “companion” or “valet”. When I once criticised his jacket as being a generation too old for him, he flushed and cried, “But Hans bought it for me!”' Any thoughts? Dmass (talk) 13:13, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Norman Lebrecht, gossip blogger and author of a pulped book, is not a credible source.Syek88 (talk) 22:56, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Glitch in bibliography?
Something seems to have gone awry under the second bullet-point in the bibliography section. Reference is made to 'Barulich, Frances. 1988' without identifying the title of the work - then a whole series of other titles is referenced (some of them quite important sources). Looks like an editing glitch. Anyone object to my trying to unpick it? Just thought I'd check in case I'm missing something. And does anyone know the title of the Barulich? Dmass (talk) 17:18, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * This item is a review by Frances Barulich of those several source items, published in Notes 45, no. 1. If you read the entry very carefully, you will find everything is present and correct, though admittedly there might be a way of presenting it more clearly.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:36, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * You might move [review of] to the beginning of the list and trim the list (boldly) and insert etc. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 17:52, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, both. How about this:

I would then transpose the most significant individual books into the bibliography (if not already there). Dmass (talk) 20:28, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Barulich, Frances. 1988. [Book review of recent publications, including Boulez 1981, Glock 1986 etc]. Notes 2nd series, 45, no. 1 (September): 48–52.


 * Works for me. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 22:05, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Incorporate 'Boulez as a Performer' into biographical section?
Would anyone object if I merged the material about Boulez as a pianist / jobbing performer which is presently in a separate section into the general biography section? Most of it would fit nicely into 1946-58 and would complement the stuff about his work with Barrault / early professional activities.Dmass (talk) 13:39, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Pierre Boulez. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://grawemeyer.org/music/previous-winners/2001-pierre-boulez.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 15:44, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Banner
Is it possible to remove the 'text thanslation' banner at the top of the page? Dmass (talk) 21:44, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, I would support removing it. If there are specific areas covered in the French article that are not covered here, then people can raise them here. I see you've been doing much work on this article recently. Many thanks for this! --Deskford (talk) 22:02, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * No problem.Dmass (talk) 06:31, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Any suggestions for a sub-title for biography section 1992-2006?
The only ones I can think of are dull ('International Conducting Career 2') or flippant ('Grand Old Man')... Dmass (talk) 15:59, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 02:58, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Glitch in bibliography, revisited
I note that Dmass has reverted my recent edit, in which I corrected the bibliography entry for one of the cited sources (and the corresponding inline citation) to conform with the referencing format generally established for this article, which appears to be WP:SFN. I have too much respect for Dmass's efforts on behalf of this article to disregard this seemingly careless opposition to WP:CITEVAR, and can only assume the unstated intention is to change the citation style to something else. Admittedly, the citations contain a number of other examples of non-conforming formats, which I have been sporadically trying to clean up for several years now, though with considerable erosion over time. If Dmass (or any other editors) have a position on what the citation format ought to be for this article, I think the time to discuss it is now, before even more variant formats are introduced.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:50, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Firstly, my apologies to Jerome. My reversion of his edit was indeed careless, but only in the sense that I was trying to do it on my iPad (whilst watching TV) and accidentally hit the Save button before I’d finished my explanation – hence its rather gnomic quality. I’m grateful for an opportunity to explain.
 * I’m certainly not trying to change the citation style - I thought I was complying with it. When I started working on the article a couple of months back, I looked carefully at this page as it stood and also took a couple of other pages as models when I hit a problem (Britten and Stockhausen, both of which seemed to me to be excellent in different ways). On the question of citations, the existing style on the Boulez page - which I agree was not entirely consistent - seemed closer to the Britten model and so I’ve followed that when in doubt.
 * -	Books and academic articles are given full citations under Bibliography (called ‘Sources’ on the Britten page): e.g. Gilly, Cécile. 2003. Boulez on Conducting. Conversations with Cécile Gilly, translated by Richard Stokes. London: Faber and Faber. ISBN 0-571-21967-5.
 * -	When the text cites the book, a short-form reference then appears under References: e.g. [159] Gilly, 137.
 * -	When a newspaper or magazine article (or website) is cited, however, it is fully cited under References and does not appear in the Bibliography.
 * -	If it is cited more than once a multiple reference tag is created: e.g. Ref [5] (the Roger Nichols obituary).
 * The advantage of this approach seems to me to be this: if every newspaper article is cited in full in the Bibliography – and also cited in short-form under References – the already very long Bibliography will be even longer. Rather than consisting of books / articles, each of which is likely to be a source of information on a variety of facts, it will be cluttered with sources which reference only one fact.
 * The citation which Jerome queried and which I reverted is a case in point. It’s an article in the Chicago Sun Times which I cited (badly, I agree – it was one of my early attempts!) and is good for one point: the fact that Notations V and VI were scheduled for performance in 2006 and then cancelled, it contains nothing else of interest. To me it seemed otiose to put it in both Bibliography and References, the latter will add nothing as (like most newspaper articles) there is no page number to identify.
 * For what it’s worth, I’d like to continue with the approach set out above as I think it’s clear, user-friendly and saves space. But I know from talk pages here and elsewhere that others have strong views on the subject … Dmass (talk) 11:33, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the explanation, which makes a certain amount of sense. Nevertheless, it results in at least two different citation styles (contrary to WP:CITESTYLE, and the use of citation templates alone causes conflicts with the style used in the bibliography (for example, years of publication are not enclosed in brackets in the bibliography, nor are journal volumes boldfaced, but the templates enforce these style features). I had not noticed the double style in the Britten article, which I agree is well-referenced; I hope the Stockhausen article is both well-referenced and consistent in citation style (since it is largely my work), though of course it uses parenthetical referencing, unlike the present Boulez article. What worries me most about this double-standard approach is that there are already more than two citation styles in place, and the same argument you are making could be made in defense of having a different style for every different type of source (monograph, collective work, encyclopedia article, academic-journal article, popular-magazine article, newspaper article, e-zine article, online blog, etc.). This clearly will not do. Consequently, it seems to me that, even assuming the dual-style approach can be justified as an exception to WP:CITESTYLE (which is, after all, only a guideline), it needs to be more carefully thought out. For example, are the exceptional full-inline citations to be used only for newspaper articles? If so, does this apply to newspaper articles cited more than once in the text? If not, why not? Perhaps closer scrutiny of the citations in the Britten article will suggest answers to some of these questions.
 * As for the multiple-reference tags, these are generated automatically for SFNs if the template is used, instead of markup. This raises another question: The bibliography currently lacks anchors, to which the SFNs may be linked. Should we not add such anchors (using the "wikicite" template would leave the formatting undisturbed) and implement links from the inline citations (using either the SFN templates in place of markup, or by embedding  templates within the footnotes)?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:21, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much for the detailed and interesting reply. You've raised a number of points which I hadn't spotted and I agree that some careful thought needs to be given to this. It seems a general spring clean of citations is overdue (and it looks like you've already made a start). As you suggested I've gone back to the Britten page and done a bit of forensic comparing with ours. Some initial proposals follow.
 * In fact, the equivalent to our Bibliography on the Britten page contains only books. Everything else (journals, newspaper articles, websites etc.) is cited separately under References. That seems to me potentially to address two of your concerns (why should newspapers articles be treated differently to any other non-book source? / why should articles referred to more than once be in References rather than Bibliography?). I suggest we strip out all the non-books from our Bibliography and move them to References. De-cluttering the Bibliography also makes it more user-friendly for readers who are just looking for books for further reading.
 * I think we would also have to do the reverse and put any books that are separately cited under References into the Bibliography. I've just noticed, for example, that I have blithely given the Otto Klemperer Conversations book its own full inline citation (at Ref [162]) and not put it in the Bibliography.
 * At various points in the Bibliography (e.g. Anon 2008) previous editors have included the page reference with the book itself. Clearly that should be cited separately under References (assuming we can work out where it belongs).
 * I would also propose that books which appear in the Bibliography but have not actually been cited under References should come out altogether. Again, an example of mine: I put the Aguila book in, anticipating I would be referencing it quite a bit in the section on the Domaine musical. In fact, it's such a badly organised book (in my view, at least) that I gave up trying to find the info I needed in it and looked elsewhere.
 * As for conflicts of style in citing books, the Britten Bibliography is rigorous in using the book citation template. All the entries in ours have been produced 'manually' (certainly when I've added books I've just mimicked what previous editors had done). The only substantive difference that I can see is the one you identify: brackets round the date are enforced by the template; with a few exceptions our dates are unbracketed. Two ways of solving this: we go through the Bibliography and manually ensure all the dates are bracketed (or unbracketed, whichever is preferred); or we go through it and convert each entry using the template. The latter approach will, of course, be much more labour-intensive.
 * When pages in books are cited under References, the Boulez and Britten approaches are similar (not a phrase you would have heard in their lifetimes): the date is only given if the author has more than one book to their name and is given - always in brackets on the Britten page, mostly in brackets on the Boulez page; the only other difference is that the Britten editors use ", p.10", the Boulez editors just ", 10". If anyone has particularly strong feelings about either issue, I would have thought they could both be corrected in an hour or so.
 * Your last para on multiple ref tags rather went over my head: I don't know what an anchor is, I'm afraid. Needless to say, if it will improve the article, I'm all for it. You'll just have to spell it out a bit for me (or direct me to the relevant guidance).
 * Look forward to hearing your (and others') thoughts about this. Once we've agreed a way forward I'm sure we'll be able to resolve these issues with a bit of effort over the next few weeks. Dmass (talk) 10:56, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I have now had a chance to scrutinise the citation system used in the Benjamin Britten article, and I must say I have some doubts about it. It is not quite consistent in listing all books in the Bibliography. For example, at note 23 there is a citation to a book edited by Lara Feigel and Alexandra Harris, formatted as if it were to an online site (the link actually goes to a GoogleBooks preview), and at footnote 148 a book found in the bibliography is given a full citation. The Bibliography also contains three chapters contributed to collective works (entries for Colin Graham, William Mann, and Myfanwy Piper), but there are conflicting treatments of this same kind of entry at notes 28 (Donald Mitchell), 57 (Philip Brett "et al.", which should appear in the bibliography with the "et al." names given in full), and 245 (Who Was Who entry). I mention all this because of the uncertainty some editors have clearly felt about which of these two types of sources some references belong to. It seems to me that this method invites trouble, not only because it may confuse editors, but because there are genuinely marginal cases involved. Dictionaries and encyclopedias are books, for example, but should the articles contained in them be treated like journal articles? Are chapters contributed to collective works articles, or should they be treated as books? Should not all the works by a recognised authority like Philip Brett—in the case of the Britten article—be listed together, rather than split into two types of references? I would say that these are serious flaws that argue against taking a split-category approach to citations. The problem is further intensified in the Britten article (but not here with the Boulez, thankfully) by the use of content notes as well as citation notes.
 * On a related subject, and in response to some of your questions, the abbreviation SFN refers to "short foonote" citations, and there is a Wikipedia template for use with these. Examples of the SFN style abound in the Britten article, but it does not take advantage of either the SFN or HARV templates' ability to link to the corresponding items in the bibliography. In order to do this, it is necessary to place a target marker (called an "anchor") in the bibliography. This can be done in a number of different ways. The simplest, from our present point of view (because it does not require reformatting the entire reference system) is, as I mentioned, to use the "wikicite" template, which embeds an anchor named "harvid" containing the author, author-short-title, or author-year citation as it will appear in the inline citation in the text. The various alternative citation templates (, , , etc.) will also provide anchors for SFN citations, though some of them require a parameter " ref=harv " in order for this to be implemented.
 * One of the most trying aspects of citations on Wikipedia is that there is no single "house style", which means that it becomes practically necessary to be familiar with dozens or even hundreds of different citation styles and a host of templates using a variety of parameter syntaxes. Most editors will simply throw in the format they are most familiar with, and leave it to others to reformat things to match the established style of an article. This can become tricky when an article deliberately sets out to accommodate two or more conflicting citation styles (which involves a great deal more than simply whether to use SFNs, full-footnotes, or parenthetical referencing). Not only will editors be dropping in references in a third, fourth, or fifth "unauthorised" format, but it may be difficult to know which of the established formats the new interloper should be changed to. I must therefore argue against deviating from the WP:CITESTYLE guideline, and in favour of deciding on a single style to use here.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:42, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks again for another helpful response.
 * I don't think the fact that there may be some glitches on the Britten page invalidates its overall approach (which has gained it FA status, after all). I imagine that, if you were to point them out to the principal editors there, they would be able to resolve them without too much trouble - assuming they agreed.
 * The risk of an inexperienced editor coming new to a page and getting the style wrong seems to seems to me to be endemic, precisely because within each major citation style (inline citation / parenthetical etc.) there are a host of sub-styles. It's unrealistic to expect everyone to be familiar with them. There are two solutions: one is the traditional one of kindly fellow-editors tidying up the mistakes and pointing the new editor in the right direction (as, incidentally, you yourself did when I made my first Wikipedia edits on another page a few years back); the other is simply to set out the main points about the page's 'house style' in a handy guide at the top of the Talk page, something I'd also be in favour of.
 * I agree that the use of a 'dual' approach throws up some marginal cases but I think they can all be dealt with by making sensible judgment calls, advertising them to new users and then sticking to them.
 * One issue which you haven't addressed is proportionality. If every source - newspaper article, website, no matter that it is only cited once and no matter that it has no page numbers to refer to - has to go into the Bibliography in order to appear again in References, the already very long Bibliography will be even longer.
 * In short, I continue to be in favour of maintaining the 'dual' approach and trying to agree some practical steps to standardise - and advertise - its application. Dmass (talk) 12:12, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I like the idea of putting a "local" house style guide on the Talk page. The only problem I foresee is preventing it disappearing, at some future date, into the black hole of archived discussions. I did not mean to suggest that the Britten page should be denied its FA status simply because of the flaws I found in the citations. My intention was to highlight the inherent dangers of a dual-format citation design. Perhaps my view of Bibliographies is different from yours, and probably different from most readers'. Proportionality is not an issue for me, because the value I see in bibliographies is that they put the entire list of sources consulted together in one orderly arrangement. This doubtless has more value to editors than to the general reader. The editor who comes to an article on a subject about which he is well-informed will be aware of not only the most important sources, but also the minor ones which have special bearing on one aspect or another. It is tedious in longer articles with many citations to sift through the footnotes in order to find wheter there are any items tyhat have been overlooked. Electronic search of texts makes this musch easier than with print items, of course, but sometimes an author's name does not immediately leap to mind, and doing an electronic search for "whoever that was who wrote the devastating but wrong-headed review of such-and-such a piece that started the rumour that the composer had been subsisting for years only on ketchup" does not work very well. Computers have come a long way, but associational-thought searches are still a thing of the future. An alphabetical bibliography is much more useful, in that it can be scanned for both familiar and unfamiliar names, reliable as well as undependable authors. Of course there is no reason not to have such bibliographies even with article that use full-footnote citations. After all, this has been standard practice for scholarly books for nearly two centuries now. It is only on Wikipedia that I find the absence of full lists of sources normal for article using full-footnote citation style. Naturally, SFN or parenthetical referencing requires such a list, so that mixing full-footnote and SFN references (on Wikipedia, at least) results in an incomplete bibliography.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:11, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes I do see the distinction you make about the different uses of bibliographies for specialists / general readers – but doesn’t that tend to suggest that shorter bibliographies are more appropriate for Wikipedia, which is quintessentially a resource for the general reader (although a good page should still satisfy the specialist)?
 * It occurs to me that one reason why this is such an issue on the Boulez page is that the three main sources of biographical material (Peyser, Heyworth and Jameux) stop in the mid-1980s which is why we have to turn to so many fragmentary sources - in particular newspaper articles and interviews - to fill in the gaps. My reluctance to include everything in the Bibliography in this instance is that it will be cluttered with (necessary) micro-sources – but I’m repeating myself.
 * I’m not sure where this leaves us. I sense that our respective positions are closer than they were when we started this discussion. How do you think we should move forward? It would be good to be able to get on with the citation clean-up whatever we decide – and also to focus again on the substantive revisions. It seems to me the two sections which need most work are Writing and Compositions. I was particularly hoping you might be tempted to have a look at the latter: there are some real gaps there – nothing on Pli selon pli, Repons, …explosante-fixe…, Derive 2 etc. Dmass (talk) 12:50, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * What we badly need here is input from other editors. We clearly have a disagreement (however amicable) about whether a double-format approach to citations is desirable, and I would very much like to hear some other opinions/arguments on the subject.
 * I wonder if we are overlooking some biographical sources that date from later than the 1980s. This is one point where the disadvantage of full-footnote citations becomes apparent. I can see in the bibliography, for example, that the Di Pietro conversation book (2001) and Ulrich Mosch's dissertation on Le marteau (2004) are both included, but there is a fairly recent French-language biography that is missing. Unfortunately, I cannot at the moment remember the author, and my copy is sealed up in a box in deep storage. (Ordinarily, I would be able to walk up to the shelf and pluck it down to obtain the required information, but searching the footnotes here to see if it is mentioned just once is virtually impossible.)
 * We have got articles on Pli selon pli, Répons, and ...explosante-fixe..., though not (I think) on Dérive. Surely there should be some useful (mainly historical) information that could be distilled from those articles, as a start. I will be glad to take a look at this particular aspect.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:21, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Are you thinking of Philippe Olivier's Pierre Boulez - Le maître et son marteau? That's 2005 and contains a lot of interesting biographical info but (as I'm sure you know) is very focussed on a central thesis about Boulez's relationship with France / Germany.
 * But I agree with you. It would be very good to hear some other views. Dmass (talk) 12:50, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, Olivier is the source I was thinking about and, yes, I am aware of the particular axe he is grinding. I see it is in the alphabetical list (and I still couldn't spot it!), but is not actually cited anywhere in the text. As such, it belongs in a "Further reading" section, I think. Are we really the only two editors who care about this page? That seems preposterous.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 16:34, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Pierre Boulez. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.theguardian.com/music/2005/mar/25/classicalmusicandopera2
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120729125854/http://www.tourdates.co.uk/news/6384-leading-clarinetist-to-receive-sanford-medal to http://www.tourdates.co.uk/news/6384-Leading-clarinetist-to-receive-Sanford-Medal

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 11:19, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Marteau para
Looking at the following para on Marteau in the Composition section:

"Boulez described one of the work's innovations, called "pitch multiplication", in several articles, most importantly in the chapter "Musical Technique" in Boulez 1971. It was Lev Koblyakov, however, who first described its presence in the three "L'artisanat furieux" movements of Le marteau sans maître,[139] in his 1981 doctoral thesis.[140] However, an explanation of the processes themselves was not made until 1993.[141] Other techniques used in the "Bourreaux de solitude" cycle were first described by Ulrich Mosch,[142] and later fully elaborated by him.[143]"

It seemed to me that it references techniques - and when they were identified (possibly in a little too much detail?) - without saying what they are. I'm reluctant to suggest an amendment myself as I don't have access to the texts cited. Anyone have any thoughts? Dmass (talk) 16:36, 3 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes, of course pitch multiplication is a technique, but surely you have access to at least some of these sources. Boulez 1971 is Boulez on Music Today, and the translation does get in the way of understanding the concept. If memory serves, Boulez also described the technique in Relevés d'apprenti. Koblyakov's dissertation is published as the book, Boulez: A World of Harmony, listed in the bibliography with a link to GoogleBooks, unfortunately only a "snippet view" version. I have the two Mosch sources (somewhere, in the chaos after recently moving house). How can I help?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:03, 3 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for getting back, Jerome. As it stands it just seems to be more about the musicologists than about the composer - and it doesn't say what pitch multiplication is. If you could redress the balance, perhaps reducing the number of sources, that would be great (for me, anyway, others may disagree...) Dmass (talk) 21:05, 3 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Your point is well-taken. It may not be easy to explain briefly what pitch-multiplication is (although it is not complicated in itself), and its workings are certainly more important to the article on Le marteau than it is here. There is a link to the section of Multiplication (music in which the technique is discussed in some detail, so a full explanation is hardly appropriate in this article. The musicologists thing doesn't really belong here at all, I think, but at the moment it is just about all that there is. It would also be useful to mention other works in which Boulez used this device, as well as its use by other composers. I'll see what I can come up with.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 01:03, 4 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Great, thanks very much. Dmass (talk) 09:47, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Links to articles on individual works
There are numerous links to WP articles on individual Boulez works, some when the work is first mentioned in the article, some in the compositions section, some in the list of works. What's the best approach? Dmass (talk) 12:32, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I think that is a good general question relevant to composers in general. Perhaps ask there, WT:COMPOSERS. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:40, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Links should definitely be used a) on 1st occurrence; b) in the list of compositions. Beyond that, WP:REPEATLINK applies, i.e. repeat links are fine when it helps the reader, e.g. when terms are far apart. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:19, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
 * If mentioned in the lead, it should be repeated there also. - I thought about Poulenc, where the list of works is separate, but a section about his work repeats some work titles, others come up a first time. I think we could argue that a reader who wants to see only that section should have all links, whether the piece came up before or not. I don't want to change that article too much, so didn't make those changes. What do you think? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:55, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, both, for your helpful responses. I'm keen that a reader only looking at one section shouldn't miss the link - especially given the quality of the individual articles. Taking Marteau as an example, my preference would be to link (1) in the lead, second para (2) In Biography/1954-59, third para (3) In Compositions/Le marteau sans maître and (subject to my next question) (4) in Selected Compositions. Too many?
 * The other question, which has only just occurred to me, is: do we still need a Selected Compositions list? All the major pieces are referred to in the Compositions section and there is a separate, and comprehensive, list of works... Dmass (talk) 09:47, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree that we don't need the section. We have the navbox also, and pieces not in there should get an article ;) - Btw, the Marteau is in prep to be linked from the Main page on Friday. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:32, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Gerda. I'll leave it for a couple of days though, see if anyone pops up with an objection. Great work on Poulenc, by the way! Dmass (talk) 21:31, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Francis Bacon
Did Boulez knew Francis Bacon (1561-1626) personally? I don;t think so!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.74.246.198 (talk) 06:36, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Well spotted - link now fixed so that it goes to the right Francis Bacon (1909-1992). Thanks! Dmass (talk) 07:43, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Pierre Boulez. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120822064647/http://www.mozarteum.at/assets/files/Mozartwoche2012.pdf to http://www.mozarteum.at/assets/files/Mozartwoche2012.pdf

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) 00:06, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Pruning to come
Thank you again for your invaluable help and for your kind words. I take on board your observations about length. I'll spend a bit of time looking at other FA composer articles for guidance/inspiration and will gradually start to prune away some of the detail. Working through this GA process has already given me a few ideas. When I've taken it as far as I can without help, I'll come back to you and discuss a possible peer review (with my tin hat on unless I've managed some pretty serious cuts, by the sound of it...). Best wishes Dmass (talk) 17:15, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

"....by the end of the final [Ring] cycle in 1980 they received a 90-minute ovation"
Really? I only ask. Very thorough, the Germans! Johnbod (talk) 02:53, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Apparently. Cited in several different sources... Dmass (talk) 05:25, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:53, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Olivier Messiaen 1930.jpg

Proposing to cut Further Reading
Two editors have queried the need for the Further Reading section at Peer Review and I think their concerns are well-founded. However, I will leave it for a couple of days in case anyone else would like to make further observations. Dmass (talk) 07:50, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Further reading revisited
The Further reading section again requires scrutiny. The MoS specifies "An optional bulleted list, usually alphabetized, of a reasonable number of publications that would help interested readers learn more about the article subject". The present list is a random collection of American press cuttings. I have ploughed my way through all six articles and they add nothing of value to the information in the citations and sources, and don't, in my view, "help interested readers learn more about the article subject". This is already one of the longest WP articles on a classical musician, and I think it would be advantageous to clear the clutter of press cuttings away entirely. –  Tim riley  talk   12:35, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree. I recall a number of editors at Peer Review (including you, I think, Tim) commenting on the length of article, so I'm looking for anything to save space before considering submitting it for FAC. There's already a fairly extensive list of sources, which should provide signposts for those who are interested in digging deeper. Unless anyone strongly objects, I propose to delete it Dmass (talk) 18:21, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Quite so. Moreover, I have just now taken the liberty of pruning some further well-meant recent additions, all cited but peripheral, unneeded and unhelpful to the grand scheme of getting the article down to a suitable word count for FAC.  Tim riley  talk   18:48, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * No objections over the six days this thread has been open, so have deleted the section. Onwards and upwards!  Tim riley  talk   00:47, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

CBE
The principal author of the article recently removed "CBE" from the opening sentence, but another editor has put it back again. I think it would be in accordance with MOS:POSTNOM to delete it once again. It was an honorary award, and Boulez was not a British citizen. We don't refer in our leads to "Ronald Reagan, GBE", or "François Hollande, GCB", or "Riccardo Muti, KBE", and I don't think we should mention Boulez's honorary British gong in his lead. It should, of course, be mentioned in the main text, and indeed it is.  Tim riley ;; talk   12:54, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I guess you're right. I removed the CBE on the other hand why did you shorten the article? MarcelDuprè1886 (talk) 19:38, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * See above section and my article edit summary. We are trying to trim the article to normal length for a Featured Article, in preparation for submitting it to WP:FAC. Any suggestions for further trimming could be made here.  Tim riley  talk   20:19, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I see now. Is it possible to at least retain some of the info as footnotes or keep the photo of Boulez's grave? MarcelDuprè1886 (talk) 17:02, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Footnoting peripheral but nonetheless interesting information to get it out of the main text is often an excellent idea − and gets the official word count down − and perhaps the principal author of the article, our colleague Dmass, will take that thought into account while preparing and trimming the article for FAC. As to the picture of the grave, my general practice is to include such a thing if we are short of pictures in an article, but if we aren't I incline not to include one, as in truth it doesn't on the whole tell the reader much about the person. But as to that I defer to Dmass.  Tim riley  talk   17:24, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Many thanks, both. There is, of course, a huge amount of information which could go in; the question is whether it's proportionate in an article aimed at a general reader. I have a rule for myself which is that, if I add anything, something else has to go. I cut a lot of (to me, at least) quite interesting detail after the article went through peer review a couple of years ago because it just couldn't be justified. I'm now eyeing further cuts to one or two sections, as well as a fresh approach to the awards and decorations sections, which has grown unchecked over the years.
 * Turning to the recent amendments, I've added back the detail about the change to Boulez's family name, but as a footnote. I can't immediately find a source for that. Could you please add one, when you have a moment? However, I've left out the middle names and details of birth and death locations for other family members. I've also added back the photographer credits, as concisely as possible. I've attempted to add back the photograph of Boulez's grave, but I'm not good with photos and it came out very large. Could someone else have a go?.
 * By the way, I think the photograph of Boulez in Cleveland is unlikely to be from 1961 (he didn't conduct there until 1965). More likely to be late 60s, judging by his hairline...
 * I hope this is agreeable. Dmass (talk) 10:46, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Sure, but how do I add a reference to a note?
 * MarcelDupré1886 (talk) 20:47, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Have a look at the format of note 2. That has a reference attached to it. Dmass (talk) 20:59, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

"Revert to version using good English"
Tim riley reverted my version, which among other things trimmed the article wordcount and fixed some grammar. I also added a reference to the family's original surname.

Perhaps you could explain TIm, in further detail, why?

MarcelDupré1886 (talk) 09:58, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Your changes used mangled English such as "heavily regarded" and "later in life he describing himself". Though your alterations are clearly well-intentioned, it is better not to change good English into bad. I see no evidence that you "fixed some grammar", assuming you are not using "fix" in the sense (OED 14c) "to kill".  Tim riley  talk   10:23, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I did not notice the he in "later in life he describing himself" and I'm sorry for that. I hope you could at least re-add the reference regarding his surname, if not I'll just do it myself later (appr. 3 hours or so).
 * MarcelDupré1886 (talk) 10:30, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Let us see if there is a consensus for your proposed addition or other changes. The principal author of the article, Dmass, may have views, as may other interested editors. You may like to note, apropos of rewriting the existing prose, that at peer review an editor with numerous FAs to his credit commented, "I have to say Dmass, that you write beautifully. I don't think I've seen such a well-polished article from a relative newbie in an awfully long time. It's clear, complete, no wasted language or nonsense, just very nicely done. It really is a pleasure to read." I concur, and counsel against making well-meant alterations to the prose without first gaining consensus here.  Tim riley  talk   11:00, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I was going to query the reference re the surname, which looks like a privately-generated genealogical record, which I don't think is normally regarded as an acceptable source on Wikipedia. I'm not saying you're wrong about the surname, but I think we'll need a more authoritative source. I was going to have a look through the various biographies later on to see if I can find one. If you can track it down, that's great. It does ring a bell... Dmass (talk) 11:03, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I've just checked Peyser (1976), Jameux and Merlin, all of whom start with PB's parents, mention the grandfather only briefly, but say nothing about the change to the surname, which is a shame. I'll keep an eye out though, in case it's hidden away somewhere else. Dmass (talk) 11:22, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Awards, decorations and Grammys
As mentioned above, I think the Awards and Decorations section needs re-thinking. It seems to list every single award Boulez received, which in itself I think is disproportionate: the article doesn't list all his compositions, or all his recordings or opera productions, all of which are arguably more significant. I propose to replace it with a single, narrative paragraph, focusing on the honours which Boulez himself listed in his Who's Who entry. I'm also proposing to remove the paragraph in the section 1959-1971 on the Grammy awards Boulez received for his recordings with the Cleveland orchestra. An earlier entry on Grammy awards was removed at peer review; another editor added this one in subsequently. My own view is that a Grammy is not as significant in classical music as it is in other genres; and focusing only on the ones he got with Cleveland reads like a bit of a puff for the orchestra, especially when there are a number of references to his work with the orchestra elsewhere. I'm also proposing to cut the penultimate paragraph in the Recording section, which I added and which I now think reads a bit like a puff for DG. I'll leave this for a couple of days, in case anyone has any observations.Dmass (talk) 14:03, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I strongly agree with all the above. It would, I'm certain, be advantageous to prune the section to focus on just the major awards. I have looked at PB's entry in Who's Who, and I see he chose to list far fewer awards than we mention in our present article. We should, in my view, follow his example and mention the important awards and omit the also-rans. That was the method we used for the FAs on Britten (145 words on the topic), RVW (132 words) etc.  Tim riley  talk   13:48, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Agreed as well. I would suggest that at least the awards without Wikipedia pages be removed, and preferably others as well to make the amount akin to the Who's Who suggestions above. Aza24 (talk) 23:33, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I've made a first stab at this, using the Britten article as a template (as for so many things...). Let me know what you think. Dmass (talk) 16:44, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Looks spot-on to me. All the important awards and honours concisely set out, with a fireproof rationale for their selection.  Tim riley  talk   21:36, 22 December 2021 (UTC)