Wikipedia:Peer review/Albert Ketèlbey/archive1

Albert Ketèlbey
Albert Ketèlbey is an interesting figure: the leading light in British pre-war light music, he was a millionaire by the end of the 1920s through the success of works such as In a Monastery Garden (1915). This has been radically overhauled recently, and an attempt at FA is the hoped for aim post PR. – SchroCat (talk) 15:30, 16 December 2015 (UTC) &  Tim riley  talk   15:29, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Just doing this bit by bit. The lead. Needs a bit of tightening up - Monastery Garden mentioned in paras 2 and 4. Winter of 1946-7 mentioned (and linked) in both in lead and in article - probably needs mentioning only in article. ?Switch paras 3 and 4 and truncate (old) 3 so that we get life-works-works-life - ; maybe something at end about current status (e.g. mention of the 'Hundred Best Tunes' poll?).


 * Biography seems to me excellent. You don't make it clear that the 'è' was (or at least I suppose it was - does anyone clarify this?) an innovation of AK himself.  In 1896-1914 section,  '..a third in 1907 with the Columbia Gramophone Company,.' would I think read better '... a third in 1907 (the Columbia Gramophone Company),...' Nice to see the connection with van Biene, a favourite of mine. In 1919-1946 section, give  links I think to Gustav Mahler and Polly (opera).


 * More anon. Thanks for this, known to me before only as a name.--Smerus (talk) 16:18, 17 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Many thanks Smerus; I'm part way through and moving through the rest at a snail's pace, but I am working on them! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 21:50, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Two possible ways of covering Smerus's v. good point about the responsibility for the change of spelling: (i) change the opening of the third sentence to "The grave accent was Albert's invention: the family name was spelled without it at the time of his birth…" Or (ii) as brother Harold followed suit with the accent, change the fourth sentence to read something like "Ketèlbey's brother, Harold, who adopted Albert's accented spelling of their surname,…".  Tim riley  talk    11:59, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Comments: Brianboulton mentioned that we had very few FAs like this one available for TFA, so I dropped by to have a look. The first thing I noticed was the edit warring, so I looked at the last 10 edits by Rexx and PotW ... and none of those edits is suitable for any article headed for FAC. (The one improvement, to "met and remarried", isn't relevant now since it was reworded.) Hope that helps. - Dank (push to talk) 02:10, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Dank. That is reassuring.  Tim riley  talk    12:05, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Ditto - many thanks Dan. Cheers - SchroCat (talk)#
 * It's a shame that we have quite precise information about where Ketèlbey lived, but refuse to make use of it. It's telling that such information didn't stop other comparable biographies from reaching FA status:
 * "Alkan was born Charles-Valentin Morhange on 30 November 1813 at 1, Rue de Braque in Paris to Alkan Morhange ..." - Charles-Valentin Alkan
 * "Giovanni Battista Barbirolli was born in Southampton Row, Holborn, London, the second child and eldest son ..." - John Barbirolli
 * "Beecham was born in St Helens, Lancashire, in a house adjoining the Beecham's Pills laxative factory founded by his grandfather ..." - Thomas Beecham
 * As for the infobox, I thought you wanted to respect the preference of the original author? Or does that only apply when the original author's preference matches your own? I find the infobox tastefully brief and it gives an at-a-glance display of some of the most pertinent facts about Ketèlbey, as well as several microformats for third-party use. It could be improved at some point in the future with a link to a list of his notable works, if that is ever created. --RexxS (talk) 00:10, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * A brief comment (I intend a full review later): I have no knowledge of the doctrine of "respecting the preference of the original author" with regard to infoboxes. Does that mean that the creator of a one-line stub, with infobox, decides the matter above any editorial consensus that might develop as the article expands? Likewise, that an article created without an infobox shall never have one unless the original creator consents? As to the current infobox, I think its effect on this article is entirely neutral; it neither enhances the article nor can be realistically described as a ghastly eyesore. (The infobox on the Winston Churchill article is an example of a ghastly eyesore.) I do question the wikilinking in the box of words such as "composer", "conductor" and "pianist", which are pretty well everyday terms. A full list of Ketèlbey's works might involve some OR, but Grove has a "selected" list which would be better than nothing,  and could form the basis of a linked subarticle. (The McCanna list referenced by Smerus would likely not qualify as a RS). Brianboulton (talk) 08:32, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I think we'd be all right citing the McCanna site. It is an online version of the printed version used as a ref (from the Univ. of Sheffield), and as AWK's biographer in the ODNB he has plenty of credibility as a source. I'll see what I can do to rustle up a separate list of works. On the whole the practice seems to be to hive such lists off from the main FA, which I'm happy to follow here.  Tim riley  talk    17:38, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, hive it off. It would unbalance the article otherwise. Brianboulton (talk) 17:47, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, hive it off. It would unbalance the article otherwise. Brianboulton (talk) 17:47, 19 December 2015 (UTC)


 * A bit more. The music section seems fine to me, and I have nothing to add myself, save to say that you might indicate Tom Mcanna's exhaustive catalogue (here).
 * I have come across two comments which may be interesting for the 'Reputation and Legacy' section.
 * One is a review of an organ recording (" In a Persian Market" and " In a Monastery Garden " - Reginald Foort, on the Wurlitzer Organ of the New Gallery Cinema, London) in Music and Letters, Vol. 8, No. 1 (Jan., 1927), pp. 96-97, where the reviewer writes snootily: "Brought to the notice of readers of "Music and Letters" not for the value of the music, but for the astonishing effects produced from the instrument".
 * The other is I think a real gem, cited by Nicolas Slonimsky in an article "The Changing Style of Soviet Music", Journal of the American Musicological Society, Vol. 3, No. 3 (Autumn, 1950), pp. 236-255. It's a 1931 review from the journal of the Russian Association of Proletarian Musicians, in an article entitled " 'Innocent' Propaganda of Imperialism", about the suite 'In a Persian Market': " The music of Ketelby's suite is reduced to a common fox trot tempo, in the manner of pseudo-Negro dance music born in the American cocktail lounge. It is clear that this music has nothing in common with the Persian people, but is the manifestation of the degraded primitive psyche of the bourgeoisie. . . . In fact, the suite 'In a Persian Market' had its "immaculate conception" in imperialistic colonial England. The composer's intention is to convince the listener that all's well in the colonies where beautiful women and exotic fruits mature together, where beggars and rulers are friends, where there are no imperialists, no restive proletarians." Wow!
 * That's it! Good luck! --Smerus (talk) 16:46, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Smerus. We had run across the Soviet crit, enjoyed it greatly and were sorely tempted to include it, but we felt it might be seen as giving prominence to something not to be taken seriously. (Perhaps we might look again at the point, SchroCat?) Thanks for your help with the review, Smerus.  Tim riley  talk    19:06, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I think you could reasonably include something at least of the Soviet crit; it is an anticipation of the attitude of Edward Said in Orientalism which is now a commonplace in serious cultural criticism and can be very validly applied in this case. And it is an aspect of Ketèlbey reception which isn't expressed elsewhere in the article.--Smerus (talk) 21:19, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * By the way I see that Percy Scholes quotes scathingly an announcement in the 1929 'Performing Rights Gazette' - "Arthur W. Ketèlbey's, (Britain's Greatest Living Composer), New and Beautiful Inspiration, 'The Sacred Hour'." (Scholes, The Mirror of Music(1947), p. 493).
 * I've added a line and quote in with the Persian Market reviews: it adds an interesting angle on the reviews and opinions of the work, I think. Smerus, thank you so much for your very kind and perceptive comments: I'll be along to your PR to return the favour in a few days. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 23:36, 19 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Quick image review:
 * File:Albert Ketèlbey.jpg - Fine
 * File:Birmingham and Midland Institute print cropped contrast.jpg - Fine
 * File:Blue plaque Albert Ketelbey.jpg - Fine, though I'd feel better if we had an FOP template
 * File:Cover of the sheet music for In a Monastery Garden.jpg -- What's the British copyright status of this sheet music cover? Pre-1923 publication only makes it free in the US; since you are hosting the image on Commons, and the work was initially published in the UK, you'll need the UK copyright status.
 * My copy of the original sheet music does not identify any individuals as being responsible for the art work, so it is now out of UK copyright. I'll update the tags on Commans shortly. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 23:38, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * File:In a Persian Market.jpg - Same as above
 * File:Sheet music for Bells Across the Meadow.jpg - Same as above — Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:37, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Many thanks Chris – I'll sort these out shortly. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 15:54, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * In the UK, the copyright on the music itself expires 70 years from the end of the calendar year in which the author dies, so Ketèlbey's music will go out of copyright on 1 January 2030 and we couldn't include any actual music. We will need to try to determine the authors of the cover sheets or the images on them, which may not be an easy task. If the authors are unknown then the copyright will have already expired (70 years after date of publication: 1985, 1990, 1991). Nevertheless, each of the images on Commons needs an additional copyright tag showing its UK status. --RexxS (talk) 17:05, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Good old Commons! You can always rely on it to let you down. Thanks for those comments, Rex.  Tim riley  talk    18:58, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Right. A bit more explicit (thanks Rex!). Worst comes to worst, you can just upload the covers locally. You could actually upload the musical notation locally as well (English Wikipedia only requires works to be free in the US). — Chris Woodrich (talk) 03:32, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Dr. Blofeld
Will try to look tomorrow. First thing I'd say is that the infobox looks redundant and a ghastly eyesore for such a figure.♦ Dr. Blofeld  18:58, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * It is. Given the history of the article, it's not atogether surprising, although the method of its inclusion in June this year left an awful lot to be desired. - SchroCat (talk) 21:49, 17 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Lede
 * "He was born in Birmingham, and moved to London to study at Trinity College of Music" -a date when he enrolled in college would be encyclopedic here.
 * "In the early years of the Twentieth century he also wrote music for silent films and he had great success in the medium until the advent of talking films in the late 1920s" - I don't think you really need to say "In the early years of the Twentieth century he also " - also you immediately think 1900-1910 and I'd guess the bulk of his work was in the 1920s. I'd shorten and say "He also found great success writing music for silent films until the advent of talking films in the late 1920s".
 * If I'm honest, too much on his popularity in the lede. I never see that level, even on the top composers. I don't think much of the second half of the second paragraph and third paragraph mainly, I think it rambles a bit. I think you can shorten or reword a bit in places to make the prose seem less repetitive. I could be told more about the actual nature of his work, his typical traits or musicality rather than just his success if you see what I mean. Nothing in the lede tells me that he was a capable player of the cello, clarinet, oboe, and horn.
 * "and after the Second World War and his originality "
 * "lso declined; many of his post-war works were re-workings of older pieces and he increasingly found his music shunned by the BBC. In 1949 he moved to the Isle of Wight, where he spent his retirement; he died in obscurity at home." -the two semicolons in quick succession jar a little with me.
 * Should Your Hundred Best Tunes be italicized as a title?
 * Link to Proms or 2009 season?


 * Early life
 * Lozells -no article? Presumably a village near Birmingham or suburb?
 * " by Dr Alfred Gaul (composition) and Dr H.W. Wareing (harmony)." -I'd avoid brackets and state "in composition" and "in harmony" for variation seems as you do that in the next paragraph.
 * "considers "shows" . I'd break "At the age of thirteen Ketèlbey composed his first serious piece of music, Sonata for Pianoforte,[n 1] which Tom McCanna, his biographer, considers "shows a precocious mastery of composition".[1][4]" into two and word it as "At the age of thirteen Ketèlbey composed his first serious piece of music, Sonata for Pianoforte. Biographer Tom McCanna refers to it as a "precocious mastery of composition".
 * I wouldn't demote his early hymns to a footnote, I think you could tack on "hymns, including "Every Good Gift", "Behold! Upon the Mountains" and "Be Strong! All ye People" quite comfortably.
 * "t to his surname, with the aim of moving the stress onto the second syllable, rather than the first. That year he appeared in a series of concerts in London and provincial cities,[7] and in March 1892 at the capital's Queen's Hall he played Frédéric Chopin's Scherzo No. 2 in B-flat minor; the reviewer for The Illustrated London News thought the "brilliant" Ketèlbey played "most beautifully"." -too much to say in one. I would say "That year he appeared in a series of concerts in London and provincial cities. In March he recited Frédéric Chopin's Scherzo No. 2 in B-flat minor at the capital's Queen's Hall, which the reviewer for The Illustrated London News thought"brilliant" and "most beautifully" done".
 * "around this time" -repeated twice in one paragraph

Do you mean In his letter? Will continue with Music tomorrow...♦ Dr. Blofeld  20:50, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Early career
 * "The Opera Comique staged a successful revival of Alice in Wonderland between December 1898 and March 1899, followed by A Good Time from April. For the latter work Ketèlbey wrote the music and songs; following poor reviews, the short run of the piece ended in May and the Opera Comique closed because of the losses brought about by the production." -I don't like the use of the semicolon here. I would write it as "The Opera Comique staged a successful revival of Alice in Wonderland between December 1898 and March 1899, followed by A Good Time from April, for which he wrote the music and songs. Following poor reviews, the short run of the piece ended in May and the Opera Comique closed because of the losses brought about by the production."
 * "Ketèlbey wrote the music in the style of the Gilbert and Sullivan works, for a comic opera The Wonder Worker, which was staged at the Grand Theatre, Fulham. The reviewer for the London Evening Standard thought Ketèlbey's score was "attractive though conventional ... No originality is shown in conception or treatment, but the conception is appropriate, and the treatment effective."[16] The same year " -which year was this again?
 * "and throughout the time working for the companies he continued to compose and publish his own work, comprising organ music, songs, duets, piano pieces and anthems." -I would split into its own sentence
 * " In the early- to mid-1910s Ketèlbey began to write music for silent films—a new growth industry in Britain from 1910 onwards—a" -too many slashes for my liking in one sentence, I would write it "As the silent film industry emerged in the 1910s, Ketèlbey began to write music for films, and found great success in the medium until the advent of talking films in the late 1920s." If you could give the actual year he started this would be better.
 * Rising reputation
 * "Because of the rise in Ketèlbey's popularity, and in sales of his sheet music, in 1918 he became a member of the Performing Rights Society,[n 10] and, except for a brief interval in 1926 when he resigned over a dispute about the allocation of funds to its members, he remained a lifelong member." -a lot in one sentence. I would word it as "Because of the rise in Ketèlbey's popularity and sheet music sales, in 1918 he became a member of the Performing Rights Society. He remained a lifelong member, except for a brief interval in 1926 when he resigned over a dispute about the allocation of funds to its members."
 * The work was not without its critics and the composer and conductor -I would argue to use the semicolon or slash after critics and remove "and" or split the sentence.
 * How can he be anonymous if he was called "Ariel"? Or is that the name given to him more recently?
 * "In 1921 Ketèlbey moved from his home in St John's Wood, where he had been living for the previous seven years, to Frognal, a fashionable area of Hampstead, north west London; he installed a billiards table in the basement, which became his favoured form of relaxation." -again there's a lot of commas, I would split the billiards part at least.
 * " Austin considered that it copied elements of his, and sued for copyright infringement.[40] In court, acting as an expert witness, the composer Sir Frederick Bridge considered" -rep of "considered"
 * "He would undertake annual tours of Britain, conducting his music with municipal orchestras and also worked with the BBC Wireless Orchestra. He was also invited to conduct several international orchestras, and spent time in Belgium, Germany, France, Switzerland and particularly in the Netherlands, where he built a strong relationship with the Concertgebouw and Kursaal Grand Symphony orchestras.[46][47] His" -the "he/his" grates a little in this section.
 * "He spent his time undertaking annual conducting tours and composing, and in 1927 he published By the Blue Hawaiian Waters and the suite In a Fairy Realm, while the following year he wrote another suite, Three Fanciful Etchings.[50] " -you could start the sentence as In 1927 and leave the other short, optional.
 * "Sant writes that Ketèlbey subsequently became Britain's first millionaire composer." -did he actually write that or did he note it?
 * "The introduction of talking films in 1927 with The Jazz Singer and the subsequent growth of the medium had a serious impact on composers and music publishers involved in the film industry." -is this supported by ref 21? Sounds a bit OR.
 * "His connection to royalty continued in 1834" -you mean "With the help of Doc Brown's DeLorean, his connection to royalty continued in 1834" ;-)
 * "Ketèlbey continued to conduct on his annual tours during the Second World War, but these were on a smaller scale because of travel restrictions; he also continued with his annual concerts at Kingsway Hall, and introduced a new march, Fighting for Freedom, which he had written in a supportive response to Winston Churchill's "We shall fight on the beaches" speech." -new sentence after restrictions.
 * Post war
 * " His letter to the Director-General of the BBC, Sir William Haley, said the exclusion was "a public insult".[63][65] "
 * Much obliged for these Doc: I'll attend to your excellent comments later today. – SchroCat (talk) 13:38, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * All covered, I think. Cheers Doc - SchroCat (talk) 10:36, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The rest looked fine, sorry for not commenting sooner. Good luck!♦ Dr. Blofeld  19:15, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt
Sorry to be so slow. Looks excellent, just a few comments:
 * Lede:
 * I might add a "himself" after "providing" early in the 2nd paragraph
 * "Twentieth century" isn't 20th century more usual around here?
 * "where he met and remarried" something missing
 * " he died in obscurity at home" I might reverse this, thus "he died at home in obscurity"
 * Early life
 * I wonder if the discourse on accents and family names might not be better in a footnote?
 * "St. John's Church" is the dot intended?
 * "Sonata for Pianoforte" as this is neither in quotes nor italicised, I thought I would ensure it is as intended.
 * "A Good Time: It might be useful to state what kind of work this was, so we can know whether to blame it all on K. or if there is a librettist to share the blame. In the following sentence, I'm not sure a semicolon is sufficient to bridge the gap between the two phrases. I might split it.
 * "Ketèlbey wrote the music in the style of the Gilbert and Sullivan works, for a comic opera" I might ditch the comma and the first "the".
 * Rising
 * The first sentence of the third paragraph has the reference numbers in reverse order.
 * "It was around this time" rather vague, considering that all we have to date it is Jolson in 1927 and presumably "this time" happened sometime after that. Someone must have counted. There's no date?
 * "His connection to royalty continued in 1834" King William a fan?
 * "at a private performance at Windsor Castle for the royal family" I would say "for the royal family at Windsor Castle". The private nature should be apparent.
 * "It is rubbish. I am sick of 'Polly'."" Should Polly be italicised? I realise it is a quotation.
 * "Such was Ketèlbey's popularity that by 1924 his works could be heard several times a day in restaurants and cinemas,[43] by which time ... " I'm not sure the "by which time" works.
 * "his new compositions were successful with audiences at home" Does "audiences at home" mean British audiences? If so, for the edification of ignorant foreign types, I'd say so.

Music etc to follow--Wehwalt (talk) 01:56, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Many thanks Wehwalt. I'll follow up on these shortly. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 13:38, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * All covered, I think. Cheers Wehwalt. - SchroCat (talk) 10:36, 22 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Sorry about the delay in getting back, regrettably or otherwise I don't have much to add:
 * Music
 * "Concertgebouw" it hasn't been long since you mentioned it so I don't know if the location is needed.
 * "shorter items in a more popular style, such as Rêverie in 1894 to Les pèlerins, in 1925," There's something about a range being given as an example here which is somewhat grating.
 * "it requires only a modest technical proficiency" I would add "to play"
 * Footnotes
 * 10 "to collect income for public performance of music on behalf composers" missing word before composers?
 * I won't say I'm going to run out and buy his CDs but I did find it interesting and very well presented indeed.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:42, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Many thanks Wehwalt: all now dealt with, hopefully well. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:56, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Interlude
Comment - interesting - or tedious, depending on pov - aspect of a sourced reference here which may not in fact be true. McCanna in ODNB says (as cited in article) that in the October 1929 issue of the Performing Right Gazette AK was described as "Britain's greatest living composer" on the basis of his income. McCanna seems to have lifted this from Sant's biography - but Annette Davison, in 'Sounds of the Silents' writes "I have not been able to locate this reference in the Performing Right Gazette". Scholes however in the reference I give above is quite explicit that the attribution is in an advertisement by K's publisher (nothing to do with his wealth), and gives the text of the ad. So I deduce that Sant is wrong in his context, that McCanna has just copied him, and that Scholes is likely to be the accurate one in this case. By the way, Davison compares (same Google book ref) K's income over a number of years with that of Gustav Holst; in 1930 K earned £1630, much more than H, but by 1955 H's estate earned twice K's, and by 1985 H was 6 times K. This is I think a very interesting index of changes in popularity and might be worth noting in the article.--Smerus (talk) 10:33, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * All very interesting and certainly worthy of inclusion. I'll draft something suitable for addition shortly. – SchroCat (talk) 12:58, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I've put in the Davidson information by that of the PRG: I need to look at the Sant wording again to see if he explains his view more clearly, or if he only making this on the basis of the PRG information. More this evening on this point. - SchroCat (talk) 12:48, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * , having looked again at the Sant source, what Davidson is talking about is unconnected to the "first millionaire" claim. What she says is on p 52'of Sant is that the PRG says that on the basis of income he was Britain's Greatest Composer (that's the reference she cannot find). There is no reference in that section to K being a millionaire (we cite the statement on page 2 of Sant). I'll have another spin through the book to see if Sant covers the point more fully later on, and if he identifies from where the information came, but what he has written on the millionaire point has not been challenged by Davidson. I'll report back with any findings on further details, but I'm happy enough to leave it in there for the present unless something comes up that specifically states the contrary position. Cheers. – SchroCat (talk) 22:01, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeh, well, the point is, Scholes does give the actual citation - it is not PRG who says AK is 'Britain's Greatest Composer', but AK's publisher in an advert in PRG - not quite (or nearly) the same thing. So Sant has just been sloppy. Best, --Smerus (talk) 22:07, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah, OK. I don't have access to the Scholes source, so the penny didn't drop with me., do you have access to that one? I think it's probably pertinent enough to include. - SchroCat (talk) 10:35, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Also - (background effect: alarm bells!!!!) nb it wasn't Slonimsky who wrote that! He was citing a 1931 review from the journal of the Russian Association of Proletarian Musicians. Which makes the quote I think even more interesting. And if you include Slonimsky's name as the citer give him a link!--Smerus (talk) 11:39, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Mea culpa! Now linked and tweaked accordingly. – SchroCat (talk) 12:58, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

And another thing... The article says Frederic Austin "wrote the opera Polly, based on the 1729 work of the same name by John Gay". I think in fact he updated the Pepusch version, rather than re-composing it. That should be clarified.--Smerus (talk) 20:52, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Now tweaked to clarify. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:34, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Comments from RexxS
First I'd like to confirm that the article offers no problems that I could find concerning accessibility: the text "subscription required" in the references is just within the acceptable limit per MOS:FONTSIZE; there are no non-compliant uses of colour; all headings are properly graded in level and no pseudo-headings are present. I've added alt text to five images, but no doubt it could be improved.

At FAC, the question is likely to be posed, "What makes this a reliable source?" It would be worth looking at the following sources to be certain that they do represent high quality sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy in the context of Albert Ketèlbey:
 * http://www.albertketelbey.org.uk/ - developed by Peter and Jane Deverill. Jane Deverill is Ketèlbey's great niece so is likely to have access to sources. The catalogues cited in this article were compiled by Tom McCanna, whom I assume will be treated as a published expert on Albert Ketèlbey as he wrote the entry at ODNB. I can, however, only find him as the author of liner notes for CDs of Ketèlbey's work at AllMusic, although that's hardly conclusive.
 * http://www.musicweb-international.com/ - MusicWeb International: A large site, but content is supplied by contributors, and per the disclaimer editorial oversight doesn't extend to contributions. I assume that its use here depends on the reputation of Philip L. Scowcroft, who is a published author in the field (he's probably notable enough for his own article).
 * Entirely concur about Scowcroft, and I shall lean gently (off-Wiki) on just the very WP editor who is placed to write him up.  Tim riley  talk    23:05, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

I can't track down this reference: The OCLC ought to be enough to find it, but searching WorldCat for 844724738 leads to https://www.worldcat.org/title/in-a-monastery-garden/oclc/844724738/editions. None of those 37 results is an EMI CD dated anywhere near to 1977.
 * Gammond, Peter (1977). Notes to EMI CD 0946 3 52399 2 8, OCLC 844724738
 * It's off my own shelves. Gammond's 1977 note from the original LP issue is reproduced in the CD reissue. Nothing to worry about there, I think, and the dating seems to me to be as it should be.  Tim riley  talk    20:32, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

I am concerned about the text in Albert Ketèlbey : While its conclusion may be true, has that been stated anywhere by a reliable source? To verify the text, you need to examine not only the 388 results cited (which does confirm that Hoare wrote lyrics for songs by Tchaikovsky, Gounod and Brahms), but you need to find a list of Ketèlbey's songs to determine whether "most had words by Florence Hoare" - although, given that our article claims that "Ketèlbey composed songs, providing the words for most of those written after 1913", perhaps this text only refers to the pre-1913 songs - I'm not clear about which songs the "Most had words by Florence Hoare" refers to. Does this section cross the line into original research? --RexxS (talk) 20:49, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * "Most had words by Florence Hoare, whose other lyrics included English words for songs by Tchaikovsky, Gounod and Brahms. "
 * I can add a ref to the McCann book when I'm back in London - a quick nip into the British Library music reading room will provide.  Tim riley  talk    21:05, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley

 * "One of his earliest works in the genre, In a Monastery Garden, brought him to widespread notice," This effectively repeats the statement in the previous paragraph that it sold over a million copies.
 * "he increasingly found his music shunned by the BBC" "shunned" implies active rejection. I think "ignored" would be better.
 * "In 1892 Ketèlbey again won the scholarship competition and was appointed as the organist at St John's Church" "again" does not sound right. He cannot have entered the same competition.
 * Minor tweak to show it was an annual competition. - SchroCat (talk) 14:06, 22 December 2015 (UTC)


 * "He won several prizes at the college before being awarded his licentiate in 1895.[" I got a bit confused here. He entered Trinity College in 1889 and then became a church organist in 1892, which sounds as if he had finished at Trinity, yet he was not awarded his licentiate until 1895. Was it a six year course and what was a licentiate - equivalent to Bachelor of Music or higher? Some clarification would be helpful.
 * The details are a little vague, even in the main biography. He was 15 when he entered and 21 when he gained his licentiate; there is no information given in the various sources as to the level or equivalency of the qualification. – SchroCat (talk) 14:04, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I too have tried to pin this down a bit from the available sources, but without success. Trinity was, as far as I can discover, in the B List of conservatoires in those days, and its doings were not as well documented in The Times, The Musical Times etc as those of the grander RAM and RCM. My impression (not at all to be relied on) is that all the London conservatoires were relaxed about ages of entry and leaving, with some notably early joiners and late leavers.  Tim riley  talk    23:15, 23 December 2015 (UTC)


 * "On leaving the college he became an examiner in harmony." Presumably at the college - perhaps "one of its examiners in harmaony".
 * Is it known why he took the post of conductor for a light opera company when he had ambitions to be a serious composer? Below it is implied that his serious music was not popular - did he realise he was not good enough at it or did he prefer light music for financial reasons? That is the main question this article raises for me, although of course I realise that the sources may not exist to answer it.
 * Unfortunately there is no reason given for the choice. - SchroCat (talk) 14:06, 22 December 2015 (UTC)


 * "The Opera Comique staged a successful revival of Alice in Wonderland between December 1898 and March 1899." What has this to do with Ketèlbey?
 * "and that year the Lyons tea shops spent £150,000 on playing his music in their outlets." Paid Ketèlbey?
 * I don't think it would be directly, although the sources does not make this clear. - SchroCat (talk) 14:04, 22 December 2015 (UTC)


 * "He would undertake annual tours of Britain" Perhaps "he undertook".
 * "also worked with the BBC Wireless Orchestra. He was also invited to conduct several international orchestras" Repetition of "also". I think the second one is superfluous.
 * "Ketèlbey was successful enough to leave Columbia Records in 1926" What does this mean? They did not pay him enough? It tied him down too much?
 * "in the October 1929 issue of the Performing Right Gazette he was described as "Britain's greatest living composer" on the basis of his income, although Annette Davison, the music historian, notes that she has not been able to find evidence of the claim in the relevant editions of the journal." As Davison disputes it perhaps qualify with "according to x, in the October 1929..."
 * According to Scholes it was in there, but in an advertisement: Smerus has pointed out a reference, but I need a shade more info from him before I alter the article on way or t'other. It needs addressing anyway - and will be soon, I think. - SchroCat (talk) 14:08, 22 December 2015 (UTC)


 * "which dropped to £2,906 in 1950" Still a lot of money when the average wage was only just over £100 a year.
 * Presumably he had no children? Dudley Miles (talk) 18:23, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Many thanks Dudley. There are still one or two I need to visit or re-visit, not least the "greatest living composer" claim, but this will be cleared up shortly, I hope. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 16:22, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments
Given the weight of existing review comments, I've largely confined myself to making a few prose adjustments and minor corrections, from which just a handful of points have arisen:


 * Why did the advent of sound films end Ketelbey's career as a writer of film music? It had the opposite effect on composers like Prokofiev and Shostakovich (and a host of minor figures). True, it required a change of approach, an adjustment that perhaps Mr K was not prepared to make.
 * I'll try and dig into this point a little more. - SchroCat (talk) 10:08, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Now tweaked to point to ther decline in sheet music sales, (and therefore income), rather than anything else. - SchroCat (talk) 13:52, 2 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Are the details of his membership of the Performing Rights Society really noteworthy?
 * As he was probably Britain's largest earner for a time, I think it's probably worth a comment. Let me have a look over the sources again to see if a tweak will bring out the importance a little more. - SchroCat (talk) 10:08, 30 December 2015 (UTC)


 * How informative to the general reader is this description of In A Persian Market: "an 'intermezzo scene' for band or small orchestra; reprehensibly demeaning or delightfully tacky ... the pentatonic plea for alms, [is] sung by members of the orchestra and harmonized entirely with open fifths and octaves over a tomtom beat, the result sounding like stereotypical American Indian music." Largely incomprehensible, I fear – can it be simplified/paraphrased?
 * I've trimmed this down considerably to remove the part which is less useful, leaving it as "an 'intermezzo scene' for band or small orchestra; reprehensibly demeaning or delightfully tacky". - SchroCat (talk) 13:54, 2 January 2016 (UTC)


 * "that year the Lyons tea shops spent £150,000 on playing his music in their outlets". Was this all in royalties to AK? That's at least £8 million at today's values, a truly collossal sum for a single year – can it be correct, I wonder?
 * It's what the source says, but it doesn't say who it is paid to: I suspect it would be to the PRS, mwhich would then have dolled out the money to the various parties, of which AWK was only one, but there is no clarity on the matter, unfortunately. - SchroCat (talk) 10:05, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I assumed that in 1924 the works would be performed live (were recordings of Ketèlbey's work even available in the 1920s?). Some not insignificant part of Lyons' spend would then have been on the wages of the performers. Given that there may have been as many as 200 tea shops, the figure is large, but not impossible, I think. --RexxS (talk) 14:10, 30 December 2015 (UTC)


 * "His works continued to sell well, and in the October 1929 issue of the Performing Right Gazette he was described as "Britain's greatest living composer" on the basis of his income, although Annette Davison, the music historian, notes that she has not been able to find evidence of the claim in the relevant editions of the journal." Surely, if the description can't be found in the relevant journal, we shouldn't be quoting it here? (It's a totally crass description anyway, to be made at a time when Elgar, Delius, Vaughan Williams and Holst were all still living).
 * There is another writer who has found it, although in an advert, rather than something from the Gazette itself. Tim will hunt down the full details next time he is at the BL. I think we need to at least refer to this claim as it's one that is often repeated about him (a google search brings up a raft of references), but we want to nail down the full story before we tweak this fully. - SchroCat (talk) 10:05, 30 December 2015 (UTC)


 * "It was around this time that over 1,500 broadcasts of his work were made on BBC Radio in a year..." etc – be more specific than "about this time".
 * The source does not provide a year, unfortunately. - SchroCat (talk) 10:05, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I've tweaked to place it in the early 1930s, which is as accurate as the source gets. - SchroCat (talk) 14:08, 2 January 2016 (UTC)


 * "Ketèlbey composed more than 200 works..." Indeed, very much more, according to the McCanna listings, so I wonder why the figure of 200 is used here, particularly as later in the paragraph you refer to his "hundreds of pieces".
 * I've tweaked slightly (I don't have access to the source, so Tim's blessing on the wording would be advantageous here. - SchroCat (talk) 14:08, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

That's all. I've never warmed to Ketèlbey – that accent is so pretentious and annoying – but at least I'm well informed about him now. I still think that a link in the Music section to some sort of list of works is advisable, otherwise fit to go. Brianboulton (talk) 17:54, 29 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Many thanks indeed Brian, for your comments and edits. Tim and I will take these on board and tweak accordingly before a hoped-for stab at FAC. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:08, 30 December 2015 (UTC)


 * PR now closed. Many thanks to all who commented. – SchroCat (talk) 19:11, 3 January 2016 (UTC)