Jump to content

Talk:Simon Rattle

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled

[edit]

"He has also worked with the world famous Toronto Children's Chorus." Is this chorus really world famous? Rattle, like many community minded conductors, has worked with a huge number of childrens choirs, local groups and so on from all around the world, not least in Birmingham and Berlin, where he is famed for taking the BPO into community settings. Is there any reason why this group is being picked out?--Rob2000 13:03, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Unlike most conductors, Rattle partially re-arranges many of his pieces, instead of going with the original and only arrangement (that of the composer). Rattle's arrangements are admired by many.

Actually, conductors modifying orchestrations is a long-standing but little-known tradition as old as orchestral music. Mahler did it, Toscanini and Stokowski did it, Karajan did it, and now I suppose Rattle does it too. The only requirements are talent and taste. - Eyeresist 07:12, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

infobox

[edit]

There is not an infobox for conductors, so why not use the Person inbox template. It should provide a quick summary, and it has been used for many famous people. Snowman (talk) 01:16, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update: the Musical artists infobox works ok. Snowman (talk) 21:21, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
When I removed the biographical infobox I provided a link to the guideline at the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music, where h2g2bob also raised the matter and had a response, see here. I'd be grateful if you could remove the box after you've read the discussion. Thanks and regards -- Kleinzach (talk) 10:52, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical music#Biographical_infoboxes refers to a consensus about infoboxes. I posted a note on this talk page before and after someone (one me) added the infobox. I put the infobox back after you had removed it without regard or contributing to the discussion here. This is the page to talk about the infobox and no one will be expected to read the talk page about suggestions for the music wikiproject that you refereed to; the Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical music#Biographical_infoboxes does specifically state that this discussion about infoboxes should be the articles talk page. Let a consensus build up here as suggested by the project. I do not know why you did not contribute here earlier. Snowman (talk) 11:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As explained, h2g2bob decided to raise the matter on the Classical Music project, not here. If he had decided to talk about it here that would have been fine. He did not. Obviously I was unaware of your comment above (8 March).
Furthermore the guideline Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical music#Biographical_infoboxes says biographical infoboxes "should not be used without first obtaining consensus on the article's talk page." -- Kleinzach (talk) 12:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But, there is a strong element of an implied consensus because an infobox has been on this page for more than a year, and during all that time there have been no objections on this talk page (and perhaps no objections anywhere). Snowman (talk) 14:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that this article should have an infobox in line with the majority of wiki articles. Consistency across pages in an important feature of the wiki. If the classical music infobox is unsuitable, then a person infobox or a new infobox for conductors should be used. Snowman (talk) 11:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The infobox is inaccurate. Conductors do not have 'associated acts'. Re his career as a "pedagogue", which school or university does he teach at? Doesn't he have a full time job as a conductor? -- Kleinzach (talk) 12:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have fixed those problems and changed it to a person infobox. Snowman (talk) 13:23, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I note that you just added the classical music wikiproject banner, and prior to that this page was only listed as being part of the wikiproject autobiography. Wikiproject autobiography has normal wiki guidelines on infoboxes and encourages them. Changed to an person infobox in the absence of a conductors infobox. Snowman (talk) 13:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
General advice on Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Infoboxes cautions against putting the boxes on arts and science pages without asking first: "Certain biography articles have opposition camps on infoboxes. . . . if you are intending to apply one of the templates to an article about a scientist, academic, or classical composer, musician or singer, first ask on the Talk page." -- Kleinzach (talk) 13:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I started the discussion here on 4 March 2008, and in the absence of any comments to the contrary (until today) someone put the infobox back several days ago, and I think that was reasonable with the comments here at that time. I am glad that you are taking part in the discussion here today. It might be worth leaving messages at the relevant wikiprojects so that their members are aware of the discussion here. I fixed the problems you had with the classical music infobox, and I am not clear what are the objections to the presence of the person infobox? 14:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC)Snowman (talk)
Also, this page has had an infobox for more than a year, which with out any comments on this talk page suggests an implied consensus, so I think that the infobox should not be removed with one edit and an edit summary. Snowman (talk) 14:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I would support inclusion of an infobox of some kind. If using other infoboxes in lieu of a tailored one, elements such as 'associated acts' can simply be manually removed from the infobox template in edit source, or left blank, and it will not show up in the saved article infobox. And, whatever you may wish to think, the correct place to gain a consensus for any action within an individual article is on its talk page and nowhere else. Project talk pages are used to gain a consensus towards policy or guideline changes within the scope of that Project. Thanks. Ref (chew)(do) 20:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I had wrote a person infox in place of the classical infobox and it was on the page until someone removed it. An infobox has been on this page for more than a year until recently. Using the person infobox seemed to me to solve the objections of not having a specific conductors infobox. Snowman (talk) 15:19, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
@User:Opus33 and @ all
Strong support of restoring the infobox
Hello, I really don't understand Opus33 user reverting and deleting the infobox on Sir Simon's page. You all have my support to restore it. (BTW, I managed it to get his foto from the Pressestelle, do you want me to remove it now ? Certainly not.). The infobox is of value for visitors coming along and gives a first impression. If you don't like the infobox layout, then edit the template and add further information; the mere deletion after more than one year of presence of this box is something want I regard as aggressive deletion of unwanted material. In this case, the infobox was of value and should be restored a.s.a.p --Wikinaut (talk) 19:27, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is pretty clear cut case of Kleinzach and the other classical music snobs trying to stake ownership of all the articles on classical musicians with their wikiproject and a bunch of rules written on the page which funnily was agreed only by their little circle. What's even more hilarious is that they even claim their project and so their guidelines don't apply to conductors as they only cover articles not covered by other music related projects. This (and a whole host of other conductors) are covered by the musicians project and yet the editors still falsely claim ownership and remove the infoboxes. I strongly say we put infoboxes on all conductors and revert all those that have had them removed under the false pretence of guidelines which don't apply. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.232.251.233 (talk) 23:40, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of which, I've read your argument Kleinzach - you claim a consensus of a group of editors who agree with your position. I've seen very little consensus with anyone outside of the classical music project. Look at the article on Joseph Szigeti. I believe it is a featured article no? I believe to be featured the whole article must be approved by a series of editors and that is must conform to the manual of style. I also believe there's a massive great infobox on it. Why haven't tried getting consensus to remove that (look it's even incorrectly tagged with your project's ownership banner)? Surely this shows that there is huge consensus to keep infoboxes for classical musicians and that you should go back and put back all the infoboxes you wrongly deleted. 128.232.251.233 (talk) 23:56, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent from all) I have zero connection to the issue, just a wanderer-by. Unless something changed when I wasn't looking, no guideline is in a position to "force" infoboxes on a wikiproject for infobox uniformity. However, wikiprojects are just misc. editors who agree to pool resources to edit collaboratively; they have precisely zero collective or organizational authority, per numerous WP:ARBCOM rulings, and WP:LOCALCONSENSUS policy, and WP:OWN, among others, and they cannot force other editors to follow wikiproject "guidelines". The upshot is that for any composer, say J. S. Bach, WP:GERMANY, WP:BIO, and any other project the article is in-scope for, as well as any random editors, really, have 100% as much business insisting on an infobox as WP:CLASSICAL has insisting on not having one. A wikiproject cannot "come to a consensus to not have infoboxes on any articles within their scope", because they are in-scope for many other projects, and they are, basically, in-scope for every single editor who takes an interest. Where project local consensuses do not directly conflict with the reasonable interests of others, it's generally best to do what the projects advise, because they collectively have thought about things and hashed out what makes sense for certain article types (usually; projects make plenty of bad decisions, too). When they do conflict, all bets are off. The classical music project does not have any magically special rights, authority, privilege, power or jurisdiction, individually or as a unit. And when it comes to building an article and building an encyclopedia, we err on the side of including more rather than less reliably sourced information as long as it is on-topic, not POV-pushing, etc. WP:BOLD is policy, and as such the urge to add features, that do not conflict with policies and guidelines, is more supported by WP principles than efforts to resist change. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 13:38, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

This page is decidedly not covered by WP:CM Kleinzach. Read the opening blurb: WikiProject Classical Music aims primarily to further comprehensive documentation of classical music—including historical and musicological analysis. Major works will be at the forefront. Where's the mention of people? Also WikiProject Classical music aims to improve, expand, cleanup, and maintain all articles related to Classical music, that aren't covered by other music related projects. Its participants help sort stubs and source statements made throughout the world of classical music. And this project is already covered by WP:Musicians.

All in all that's safe to say that this project is NOT covered by WP:CM and the WikiProject banner does not belong here. 131.111.213.37 (talk) 05:44, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I have told you on your talk page: The project explains "WikiProject Classical music aims to improve, expand, cleanup, and maintain all articles related to Classical music, that aren't covered by other music related projects." The text you quote above was not written by the project. It was written by you. -- Kleinzach (talk) 05:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I note the WikiProject Classical Music banner has again been removed from this page by the Cambridge IP 131.111.213.37. -- Kleinzach (talk) 07:06, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The page is covered by "Wikipedia:WikiProject Musicians", so according to those rules the "WP Classical music" does not have a remit here. Snowman (talk) 15:48, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but even though at the moment technically this article is not under WP:CM's jurisdiction, every one of the three classical music WikiProjects is against infoboxes. We are currently discussing a restructuring of the three main projects but no matter what, this article will eventually fall under one of these WikiProjects all of which have a no infobox guideline. Centy – reply• contribs – 02:22, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Follow me to join the secret cabal!

Plip!

(outdent from all) This is like a lion and a jackal arguing about who's going to pilot the rocket. Wikiprojects do not have "remits" or "jurisdictions". Having or not having a project banner on the talk page means one thing and one thing only: It will or will not get categorized in project categories for article class/importance tracking purposes. It does not give anyone a right to insist on jack with regard to anything to do with the article, its structure or its content. Statements like "This page is decidedly not covered by WP:CM" simply don't make sense. WP:CM claiming any kind of WP:OWN right to control this page is a pile of steaming crap. So is trying to prevent people from properly categorizing an article like this as pertaining to classical music project interests, a scope within which it obviously falls, among many others. Almost no one in this debate understands a damned thing about how wikiprojects and WP policy work, or why. You should all zip it, and go work on improving articles instead of trying to get political about things you just haven't properly internalized yet. There's is no consensus whatsoever to remove the infobox from this article. There's also no consensus whatsoever to remove the CM banner from this talk page. And all this noise about what some line at some project page says about imaginary jurisdiction reminds me strongly of those cases you read about in News of the Weird where one spouse shoots the other, then suicides, over an argument about the TV remote control. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 13:59, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Each conductor packs his own luggage"

[edit]

I went to the Berliner Philharmonie yesterday evening to hear and see Rattle performing Brahms' Symphony No. 1 with the BPO. After the concert, i waited for him outside of his dressing room and told him how disappointed i was by what i felt were the extremely fast overall tempi he had chosen, or, more precisely, by the way he never ever had seemed to take the time to emphasize the many subtle transitions between the different phrases in all the movements except the second (the only movement he - in my opinion - conducted really as beautifully as it should be). I told him that it was over too fast in my opinion and that he should have given the piece and the assistance more time; that i felt he had treated it as if it had been Tchaikovsky's Symphony No. 5. He answered - very friendly, by the way - that one could also conduct Brahms "that" (i. e. his) way, and that "each conductor packs his own luggage". So much for Rattle being a *German* conductor in the Furtwängler tradition. --RCS (talk) 14:52, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When did Rattle start as Principal Conductor of BPO?

[edit]

This page says he started in 1999. However, the page on the Berlin Philharmonic says he has been the conductor since 2002. Does anyone know the answer? Please update either or both these pages accordingly. Kuncherto (talk) 03:11, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's 2002 for sure. (berliner-philarmoniker.de) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.31.201.235 (talk) 10:57, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Rattle was elected already in 1999, but his tenure as a conductor of the Berlin Philharmonic started in 2002 as Claudio Abbado declared beforehand in 1998 to resign in 2002.
Surano (talk) 20:54, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Simon Rattle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:14, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Simon Rattle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:54, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Simon_Rattle&oldid=1252177052"