Talk:Benjamin Britten
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Contents |
[edit] Removed: same
I pulled this sentence out:
- The result of this hostility was that Britten's friends and supporters intensified their efforts to proclaim his genius, with the result that all his work was of the same high quality.
because I've no idea what it means, and therefore suspect no-one else will either. Does it mean
- The friends/supporters rallied to Britten's cause, claiming that all his work was of high quality. [More likely]
- The friends/supporters assisted Britten, so that all his work was of high quality. [Less likely and certainly less NPOV]
charlieF 12:17 Mar 13, 2003 (UTC)
[edit] Removed:Figured bass rules
I'm removing this sentence:
- Only a few years before, a new work by Gustav Holst had been roundly condemned for not following the rules of 18th century figured bass.
Figured bass doesn't have "rules" as such - it's a system of notation rather than anything else. Perhaps it is meant to mean that it was condemned for not following the rules of harmony used in the 18th century, but if it does it should say that (and I doubt that would be true anyway - music in England at that time wasn't the most forward-looking in the world, but it wasn't that bad). The whole "commentary" section, indeed, needs work - "The present contributor considers..." is not a suitable way of writing for the Wikipedia (don't have time to work on this right now though). --Camembert
Benjamin Britten's continental influences will probably preclude him forever from the fame and respect he truly deserves in Britain. However fortunately his music does travel well and is appreciated in the rest of the world. The reactionary nature of the natives of Aldeborough STILL refuse to erect a statue of him because of his sexuality. Little do they realise that without Britten's putting Alborough on the map many of them would not have a thriving tourism and bed and breakfast income . Norwikian 09:07, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I'm questioning whether it's appropriate to have a "commentary" section such as this article has—it is proper to report critical commentary, but not for a wikipedia author to function as a critic himself. Someone familiar with this topic (not I) should review this section, though I think there are interesting observations/critiques in there. Postdlf 23:48, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Rewrite
OK I've done a fairly major rewrite, partly to meet the objections above and partly because I felt Britten deserves rather fuller treatment. The last paragraph may still need work, however (as may the whole thing) Wilus 17:03, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Gay
I'm missing something about Britten's homosexuality. Is that on purpose?
- What are you missing about it? Hyacinth 11:56, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
-
- There is a reference to Peter Pears being his "life-partner", but that's about it as far as I can see. I think there's a case for saying a bit more - not to be prurient, but to point out that Britten and Pears were openly gay at a time when it was illegal in Britain to have male-male-sex. They couldn't give a damn who knew about their love life. This was a very advanced attitude for its time. JackofOz 13:29, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- I am not convinced that the latest edit serves any useful purpose. The consummation of their relationship is not relevant, I don't think. Thoughts, before I revert it? --Wspencer11 (talk to me...) 13:34, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
- I have rewritten the passage...speak up if it still needs work. --Wspencer11 (talk to me...) 16:10, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
-
I think the issue is relevent if it can be shown to have had some influence on his work. Composers and their love lives are frequently referred to in various biographies. Take Wagner or Beethoven for example. Why should it be different for Britten?
i think its important because it shows bravery and that he does not care what people think although it should only be a little bit. holly taylor
[edit] Anarchist?
I was surprised to see Britten categorised as an an anarchist. I would of thought he could only be described as such in a very metaphorical sense. Or am I missing something? Bluewave 11:46, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
- Hm, that seems weird to me as well. I read the Carpenter bio, and don't remember anything about anarchism. Since this comment was posted a long time ago, I'm going to remove the cat and see what happens. Makemi 03:10, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
- I don't remember anything about him being an anarchist -- pacifist, definitely yes, but not anarchist. Maybe the person who added the category can provide a reference? Antandrus (talk) 16:02, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
- It should be removed anyway unless supported in the article text; Wikipedia:categories says that the reason for a cat should be obvious on going from the cat to the article. I suspect someone is over-reading Peter Grimes. Septentrionalis 20:41, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Pederast?
I query the addition of the "pederasts" category. Is it beyond dispute that "Britten's children" amounted to pederasty? --RobertG ♬ talk 11:51, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- I agree. Terms like "pederast" and "pedophile" have strict scientific definitions that may include people like Britten. However, these words are laden with tabloid hysteria and even some dictionary definitions presume that pederasty is defined by particular sexual acts. Also the point of categories is surely to focus on the things that make a person notable: Britten is a world-famous composer, not a world-famous pederast! Bluewave 12:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- Might it then be order for Britten to be removed from the category? Markjdb 02:21, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
- Surely if there is any evidence of this, it is noteworthy and worthy of such categorisation. No one has raised whether it is true or not. If untrue, then I agree it should not place the composer in a category such as Pederast or Pedophiles, but I would hate to see any cavilling at a fact, if it is a fact. Alpheus 11:08, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
- The guidelines on categories say "Unless it is self-evident and uncontroversial that something belongs in a category, it should not be put into a category." At the moment it is certainly not self-evident and uncontroversial (based on the content of the article). Bluewave 14:46, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
- There was once a reference in the article to Britten's attraction to young boys, but it was removed anonymously some time ago. It read:
- The role of Miles in the last named [The Turn of the Screw] was created by the twelve-year-old David Hemmings with whom Britten, always drawn to young boys, became infatuated. The use of the boy's voice as a symbol at once of innocence and temptation is a recurring motif in Britten's music.
- There is information on this topic in the Carpenter biography and in Britten's Children. Wilus 13:05, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
- OK then, there's two arguments here. Firstly, some of the facts from those books would have to be included in the article. Secondly, there is a judgement as to whether the facts amount to "pederasty". I've got 2 dictionaries on my shelves, both of which define pederasty in terms of "sodomy" and "sexual acts" between men and boys. I am pretty sure that neither the Carpenter biography (which from recollection is very cautious about the subject of Britten's relationships with boys) nor the "impeccably unsensational" Bridcutt book would support that suggestion. Bluewave 13:36, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
- There was once a reference in the article to Britten's attraction to young boys, but it was removed anonymously some time ago. It read:
- The guidelines on categories say "Unless it is self-evident and uncontroversial that something belongs in a category, it should not be put into a category." At the moment it is certainly not self-evident and uncontroversial (based on the content of the article). Bluewave 14:46, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] St Cecilia's Day reference
I doubt that any encyclopaedic value is served by the reference to Britten's being born on the Feast of St Cecilia, patron saint of music, as there are thousands of Anglican and Roman Catholic saints, and many more famous people born on saints' days, but I imagine that any correlation is rarely if ever mentioned in any prestigious encyclopaedia. I won't remove, but unless there's strong support, after time I suggest that it should be. Alpheus 11:03, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
- I say keep the reference. It is relevant as he is composer and an interesting piece of trivia. I have read it in many other short biogs of Britten. --Richardbates2002 21:37, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
-
- And he did write Hymn to Saint Cecilia, after all. One of the three reasons was the coincidence of his birthday on her feastday. -- JackofOz 23:55, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Subjective description of style
"For many musicians, however, Britten's flawless technique, broad musical and human sympathies and ability to treat the most traditional of musical forms with freshness and originality places him near the head of composers of his generation."
- Well, count me in as one of "those musicians", but this doesn't seem acceptable as a NPOV. Any other opinions? MarkBuckles (talk) 06:01, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Infobox
| Benjamin Britten | |
|---|---|
| Birth name | Edward Benjamin Britten |
| Born | 22 November 1913 |
| Origin | Lowestoft, Suffolk, England  |
| Died | 4 December 1976 Aldeburgh, Suffolk, England |
| Occupation(s) | Composer |
In view of the consensus that has developed against using popular music infoboxes on articles about composers I have moved this one here, for comments etc. -Kleinzach 04:23, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Commentary
This article is an excellent example of why Wikipedia is not a reliable source for information. I do not regard myself as an expert on Britten, but I am a doctoral student in music composition presently, and I have closely studied Britten’s music and his life. The facts stated in this article seem to be accurate—i.e., dates of works, and the chronology of Britten’s life, but reading this section one gets the impression that his major musical achievements were the Young Person’s Guide to the Orchestra, some choral pieces and the Nocturnal. These are in fact wonderful works, but Britten’s most important achievements were in the realm of vocal music, particularly opera. Touching upon Rejoice in the Lamb, A Hymn to the Virgin and the Church Parables is a step in the right direction, but much more consideration has to be given to the operas Peter Grimes, The Turn of the Screw, Albert Herring and, most importantly, Death in Venice. These were the works in which Britten made some of his greatest innovations, including the use of serial methods of composition (in The Turn of the Screw) and gamelan music (in Death in Venice). The operas must also be viewed in the broad historical context that there really was no English opera to speak of since Henry Purcell’s Dido and Aeneas of 1689. Scholarship is much more than simply getting facts right—it’s bringing up the right facts for the right reasons, and understanding them in a broader context (in this case, Western music history). It takes real scholars and teachers to do this, not any random person who can contribute anything he or she wants to this website, Wikipedia’s statements about “verifiable” information and “consensus” notwithstanding. To really learn about Britten, try starting with the Oxford Companion to Music or Baker’s Dictionary of Music and Musicians. The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians is regarded among scholars as the most authoritative reference source for music—hard-core stuff which assumes you have pretty good musical background already, but still an excellent source of information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by OwenParamore (talk • contribs) 21:11, 24 May 2007
- I shifted the above comment over from the article page where it had been reverted to here. - Fordan (talk) 21:16, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- Sounds like we have a volunteer. Roll up your sleeves and get stuck in, Owen, old boy :)) --Stephen Burnett 21:19, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- Yes I appreciate the point Owen is trying to make. O if only the vulgar masses, the great unwashed would keep their filthy paws of this thing and put away their stupid aspirations that they might be a part of some truly great democratic project then the world would be a better place.!!
- The "Music" section is frankly pretty bad, and has been for a long while, with random people adding random paragraphs on compositions they happen to know. It needs rewriting, by Owen or someone similarly qualified, and if no-one will step forward I suggest it simply be deleted. Wilus 12:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- Yes I appreciate the point Owen is trying to make. O if only the vulgar masses, the great unwashed would keep their filthy paws of this thing and put away their stupid aspirations that they might be a part of some truly great democratic project then the world would be a better place.!!
- Sounds like we have a volunteer. Roll up your sleeves and get stuck in, Owen, old boy :)) --Stephen Burnett 21:19, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Works - explanation for deleting section
Recently an IP editor added a "Works" section - well, to be more accurate, the editor (presumably German-speaking) added a "Werke" section with various titles in German (e.g. "Serenade für Tenor, Horn und Streicher") see here. Some, but not all, of these German titles have been corrected or made to point to the correct article on the individual composition. However, there's already a better list at List of compositions by Benjamin Britten which is appropriately linked as a "See also" under "Music", we don't need a shorter list of key compositions as these are already mentioned at appropriate points in the text and I think that this section clutters up the article on Britten unnecessarily. So I'm boldly getting rid of it, but thought I would explain why here, in case anybody objects and wants to discuss. Bencherlite 09:37, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
