User talk:Phzamagna

/* Response to your e-mail */ new section
Hi Pedro, I received your e-mail, but I prefer to converse on wikipedia as opposed to e-mailing as I don't give out my e-mail to people I have not met in person. I hope you will login to your wikipedia account and get this message. Thank you for your interest in the William Chapman (baritone) article. I created that article because I am interested in singers who created roles in operas be Menotti, and writing on American singers of the 20th century is a hobby of mine. I am afraid that I am not familiar with the work of Ray Smolover or Douglas Stanley, although vocal pedagogy is an area of interest to me as I am a music teacher and baritone. I do enjoy researching voice teachers. I recently greatly expanded the article on Estelle Liebling for example. For my own teaching, I rely more on William Vennard, Ralph Appelman, and Margaret Greene when it comes to pedagogy texts, and of course the wisdom of my own voice teachers. I will do some digging for sources, and see if I can come up with an answer and perhaps create an article on Stanley if quality sources can be found. You wouldn't happen to know the year Stanley was born and the year he died? That would help me in locating references. I may have more answers for you given time. Best wishes.4meter4 (talk) 05:19, 22 January 2022 (UTC) :Update, I found a very short obituary in The New York Times (https://www.nytimes.com/1958/04/21/archives/douglas-stanley.html?searchResultPosition=1) stating he died Saturday, April 19, 1958 in Los Angeles. I also found a brief obituary in the Musical Courier saying he was 68 years old when he died. That would place his year of birth c. 1890. There are plenty of pedagogy books that mention his work, so he deserves an entry on wikipedia. He was clearly an important researcher with wide influence. His pedagogical opinions appear to have sparked debate among singing teachers, and he had his champions and critics. Unfortunately, I am finding it challenging finding a source which is predominantly about Stanley and containing biographical details such as notable pupils. Most of the sources are about his pedagogy publications and research, but not him as a person or as a teacher.4meter4 (talk) 06:25, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I received your second message this morning. You can reply to me on this page. Simply click on the edit this page button at the top or on the edit section of this conversation. Type what you want, sign your post by using four ~ and click publish changes. You are free to e-mail me still if this is confusing, but I will reply here. Your project sounds interesting, and I would definitely be interested in any resources you want to share or any fruits of that project. Please keep me informed. In the mean time, I will try and put together a wikipedia page for Douglas Stanley sometime this month. Best wishes.4meter4 (talk) 17:18, 22 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi Pedro. I received your e-mail. I wasn't aware you were interested in working on wikipedia, and had assumed your project was intended to be off wikipedia and independent of what I was planning on creating. I am happy to step back and let you create the wikipedia article on Stanley if that is your desire. As an editor new to wikipedia, I strongly suggest using the draft process as described at Drafts. You would create the article at Draft:Douglas Stanley, and then submit it for review. I am happy to be a resource for you if this ends up being what you decide to do.


 * However, it sounds like you are personally doing original research such as interviews, and are interested in filling in gaps within the current published literature on Stanley. Unfortunately that kind of material is not usable on wikipedia per wikipedia's policy of no original research. Please read No original research and Verifiability for a detailed explanation on what sources/ material is usable within wikipedia. You are free to use material verified to books, academic journals, newspaper articles etc. (as long as they are not self published), but you may not use materials from your own original research on wikipedia. We rely on published sources that have gone through some sort of editorial review, and the use of primary sources is limited. Also, please understand that all articles on wikipedia are edited collaboratively and are not owned by anyone. Please read wikipedia's policy at Ownership of content. Any article on wikipedia can be edited by any other user, so please understand that any content you add may be changed.


 * Ultimately wikipedia may not be a good platform for what you are trying to achieve. It sounds to me like this would be a great project for submission to either the Journal of Historical Research in Music Education or the Journal of Singing (which is the journal for the National Association of Teachers of Singing). Alternatively, you might consider going through Humanities Commons (https://hcommons.org) which has a very useful peer review process and is a good way to get original research published outside of a traditional academic journal or academic press. I honestly would suggest trying to get your work published through one of these avenues as opposed to going through wikipedia given that you are doing original work. Once your research is published through one of these avenues it would then be useable as a resource for a Wikipedia article, but not before then. I will post a welcome template below with lots of useful wikipedia policy links, should you choose to work on wikipedia. Also, please consider joining WP:WikiProject Opera (of which I am an active member) if you decide to become involved on wikipedia in article creation. If you have any other questions, or need assistance please feel free to contact me. I would also love to know how your project progresses, no matter how you choose to proceed. Best.4meter4 (talk) 22:28, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

/* Response to your e-mail */ new section
Hello.

Yes, I know that my own material or the videos I'll be doing on Stanley isn't exactly a credible source, I only meant that, whenever I come to that, I'll have all the research materials and references that I've come with, through public outlets, cataloged and properly organized. In that way, I'll have at hand most of what we will claim through the videos, as not everything we can show proof, and use it for the wiki page.

Scott and I have only, as priorities, the videos at the moment, we are not discarding the rest, like the wiki page. I have also taken a look at some guides on how to create a page.

I'm not sure how "we" feel like publishing anything outside Scott's YouTube channel or any other private outlet, though we don't plan in creating a website or nothing like that.

Before the NATS was built, Stanley had already publically written that such an association ought to be formed, however, he was very strict and demanding how the institution should function and accept its members. Inevitably, as he was extremely critical of his peers in the profession, he was widely hated in the organization.

Though, and I think even Vennard recounted this fact in one of his publications -- and I have it somewhere --, that John C. Wilcox, the first president of the NATS, tried pleading for the acceptance of Stanley in the organization, but history tells that did not happen, and Stanley definitely did not want to help his own case.

As a matter of fact, I have found a dissertation/thesis, from some point in the 50s, where the author describes that, although Wilcox wrote very much everything Stanley wrote -- and even Vennard called Wilcox a pupil/student of Stanley, if I recall it --, Stanley abhorred that rumor and the both of them had some "hot" correspondence exchanged.

So, it is a though subject. I don't mean that I, or Scott, want to keep as "tradition" the temperament and the self-isolation of Stanley, but I understand it as a waste of effort to try getting him accepted or tolerated in the NATS. Though, truth be told, everyone that felt criticized or attacked by Stanley no longer live, so, the "academia" could definitely let him "slide" after all these years.

I'll look into what we will do, outside the videos we plan to make, and I shall start organizing everything I have on Stanley soon.

And I absolutely accept your collaboration and will contact you in the future.

Thank you.

Sincerely, Pedro.

By the way, other and the most well-known students of Stanley, who did not have lasting careers, would the LoMonaco brothers; Tom and Jerome. You can take a look at their singing in Scott's channel. Scott plans to release the recordings that Tom made in Stanley's studio, which have been private ever since they were recorded, after we make our publications on Stanley. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC3t9Vmp4o64HG92UXpzB8cw/videos

In case you have already looked at what Stanley wrote, you might have seen that he devised manual laryngeal manipulations and even created a metal instrument, known as the tongue instrument, in order to have the tongue working as he deemed fit. Do have in mind that, in case you are mildly aware of Eugene Feuchtinger and his work, and see any similarites with both, I can tell you there are none. The main and evident argument would be that, Feuchtinger, was very extensive in commercializing his work and his method, whereas Stanley was not, and it is unknown of Feuchtinger ever produced a single singing soul; and Stanley did.

It is also widely and incorrectly spread that Stanley had retracted from the manipulations and even apologized for it, as it supposedly did more bad than good, but he did not. That was misinterpreted, as he simply pointed out that there were people, having or not studied personally with him, enforced things incorectly and did damage. Below is another tenor that studied with Stanley, Herbert Doussant.

http://www.historicaltenors.net/english/doussant.html