Talk:String Quartet No. 9 (Simpson)

POV
This article contains a clear bias towards the quartet and does not cite enough sources. E.g. "This quartet has been described as ‘the summit of 20th century quartet literature’ and has prevalently been recognised as a masterpiece in Simpson’s oeuvre." This is not NPOV and does not cite a source for the quote. I also feel that many of the descriptive words used (E.g. "acting like a vortex of a whirlpool, irresistibly drawing all the other instruments from the musical maelstrom into itself.") show a bias towards the quartet. The descriptive tone is not too bad in itself, but it does seem to describe the quartet in a somewhat favourable manner. It reads almost like a CD liner note. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.219.48.35 (talk) 12:01, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I disagree with this comment. Critical reaction to C20 string quartets is not voluminous, and if someone doesn't like Simpson's quartets, they are unlikely to criticise them, they are likely just to ignore them. As far as I am aware everyone who has bothered to write about the quartet thinks it's a masterpiece (as I do).202.55.155.143 (talk) 11:15, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I second this fellow, and as nobody has managed to find anything to the contrary despite the tag being there for ages, I'll remove it now and people can continue to comment on this talk page if they like (however unlikely this may be). 88.105.2.207 (talk) 06:46, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Reference to the journal 'Tempo' (footnote 2).
The article cites a paper in 'Tempo' but does not give a precise reference. I can find no such paper on JSTOR. It may exist, but if so please provide an exact reference to year/issue/pages of the journal. --Henrywgc (talk) 14:14, 16 February 2021 (UTC) I have now found the article and inserted a link and full reference.--Henrywgc (talk) 14:31, 16 February 2021 (UTC)