Talk:Universal Edition

Untitled
Maybe someone more articulate and knowledgeable than I could write a bit on when UE was under Nazi control - a fairly important event in its timeline, I think.

---

I have removed the IMSLP and boycott sections, as these are not historically relevant to the company and do not adhere to the Wikipedia guidelines on encyclopedic entries. The issue can be read at the IMSLP page, where it belongs. Cookerid (talk) 15:48, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

---

They are relevant. Relevant enough for it to be featured in the news: http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/mpapps/pagetools/print/news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7074786.stm. Legally relevant, commercially relevant, historically relevant.

---

Please refer to the Wikipedia guidelines on including text. Wikipedia is not for news nor a battleground (referring to the recent vandalism of the page). And please sign your comments. Cookerid 21:24, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

---

I have again modified the disproportionate coverage of the IMSLP dispute. It completely goes against the concept of the Wikipedia to use a quarter of an entry on one of the most important music publishing companies of our time for a complaint in favour of a third party. This entry is about UE and should therefore concentrate on describing it as objectively as possible. The IMSLP entry covers its history and there has been enough said there. If you disagree, please explain here. Cookerid (talk) 20:12, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * If you think so highly of the company than write about it's history and stop your whining. It is NO reason to remove completly valid information concerning the companys recent doings. --Sapeli (talk) 01:46, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Allow me to quote from the Five_pillars: "Wikipedia is not the place to insert personal opinions, arguments or experiences." A company's "recent doings" are therefore certainly not the stuff of an encyclopaedic entry, whether you agree with them or not. Further: "Wikipedia has a neutral point of view, which means we strive for articles that advocate no single point of view." My point being, if information here is disputed, it is best left out, as it cannot be seen to have a neutral point of view.

With all sympathy for the fate of the IMSLP, one can only imagine it to be an insignificant event in the history of Universal Edition. Are we to list all legal disputes they may have been involved in? Cookerid (talk) 22:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * UE vs. IMSLP is not personal opinion and its presentation in the article is not advocating a single point of view nor is the information disputed. Your use of it is best left out, as it cannot be seen to have a neutral point of view shows IMO a misunderstanding of WP:NPOV where its says: "The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly." In fact, I would argue that omitting this information is a violation of that policy as it would fail to describe an event directly related to the article's subject which generated substantial debate (for which M. Geist's article is reputable evidence).
 * I suggest you restore this version. Michael Bednarek (talk) 00:22, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Your opinion is noted. I believe the current version to be a comfortable compromise. The idea that failing to include information could be seen as violation of the Wikipedia policy is not sustainable to me, particularly when this information is inarguably of an emotional nature (cf. call for boycott). My opinion, as stated, is that this can only be seen as a minor event in an objective history of the company and should therefore not be further emphasized. But sure, I like the company, and believe in the grand scheme of things it has done more good than bad, so that's why I've made these comments. I don't want to labor the point. Cookerid (talk) 22:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the compromise language. All the best, Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:05, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Again, you removed headings and a lot of valid information and replaced it with coloured summary. If there's emotional part in the article, remove the one part, not everything! Information in itself cannot be emotional, it's all about how you interpret it.


 * Your whole contribution history is composed only of edits to this article. I don't care what PR person you are from Univeral Edition, Wikipedia is to bring out facts, not to cover it with flowers and sweetness. --Sapeli (talk) 06:06, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * My dear Sapeli. Your paranoia is indeed impressive, but you shall not have your edit war (at least not with me). If you believe "suggestions of an international boycott" on a forum run by the IMSLP itself to be worthy of an encyclopaedic entry, then I cannot argue with you. My only interest is in a balanced picture of a reputable publishing company, which may or may not have overstepped the line in this one occasion.


 * So to reiterate my undying love for UE and all the spectacularly magnificent works they have made available to the musical world, I will leave you with that quote (I'm too lazy to look it up): Be careful what you wish for - you might just get it. Cookerid (talk) 11:13, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm glad to see you didn't delete the headers this time. I have no problems with balanced picture, but I believe it should be accomplished with adding new information to the article, not deleting it. I must agree you have a point in the boycott thing, it does not have any references to support it. Main thing what I didn't agree with your edits, was removing the part mentioning Michael Geist's writing. --Sapeli (talk) 18:31, 9 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The wording for the second section was sloppy, and un-encyclopaedic. It has been rewritten.

CharlieRCD (talk) 17:01, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Records?
This article has been placed in the categories "Record labels established in 1901" and "Classical music record labels." Did Universal Edition in fact publish records? If not, then those categories should be removed. Drhoehl (talk) 01:51, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Fixing the "Neues Wiener Tagblatt" quote
The current snippet from "Neues Wiener Tagblatt" contains typos/misreads and is shortened in a way that the German text is incomplete. The English summary/translation is fine in comparison to the full German text (see link to old newspaper).

Here is a version of the current German quote with only the typos corrected:

Die neue Musikausgabe, welche unter Zusammenwirken der hervorragendsten Interessenten des österreichisch-ungarischen [...] sowohl die Werke der Classiker wie auch die hervorragendsten Werke instructiver Art umfassen wird, denen sich Schöpfungen bedeutender moderner Meister ...

Full quote of the same paragraph:

Die neue Musikausgabe, welche unter Zusammenwirken der hervorragendsten Interessenten des österreichisch-ungarischen Musikverlages gegründet wurde, führt den Titel: "Universal Edition". Die "Universal Edition" ist eine musikalische Collectivausgabe, welche sowohl die Werke der Classiker wie auch die hervorragendsten Werke instructiver Art umfassen wird, denen sich Schöpfungen bedeutender moderner Meister, wie Bruckner, Goldmark, Liszt, Rubinstein, Smetana, Johann Strauß, Volkmann u.A., anreihen werden.

A suggested reduction:

Die neue Musikausgabe, welche unter Zusammenwirken der hervorragendsten Interessenten des österreichisch-ungarischen Musikverlages gegründet wurde, [...] [wird] sowohl die Werke der Classiker wie auch die hervorragendsten Werke instructiver Art umfassen [...], denen sich Schöpfungen bedeutender moderner Meister, [...] anreihen werden.

This puts back in "Musikverlage" ("publishers"), and renders proper German sentences with mild omissions / modification of word order (in square brackets). The English translation still fits.

What do you think?

Albertr (talk) 13:54, 15 December 2023 (UTC) (my user account is on de.wikipedia.org)


 * As the one who inserted the original German, thank you for the corrections, I had some trouble reading the font of the original (and I'm not great at German!). I've inserted your suggestion, which seems to be an improvement.  Aza24  (talk)   23:00, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Yes, Frakturschrift can be challenging. Albertr (talk) 17:24, 1 January 2024 (UTC)