Talk:Claude Debussy/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Spurious?

Chuckstreet has removed "Ballade à la lune" from the text, saying in the edit summary "it is now known that this is NOT by Debussy. The reference cited uses old information. This piece was removed from the Lesure catalog in it's [sic] second edition in 2002."

This presents a certain difficulty, because

(i) the original reference has been left in situ, and the text now contradicts it; (that source – the Centre de Documentation Claude Debussy – is run by the Bibliothèque nationale de France);

(ii) The Cambridge Companion to Debussy, published later than 2002, lists the work along with "Madrid, princesse des Espagnes" as one of his two first known and dated compositions, and

(iii) no evidence is cited that François Lesure believed the song was not by Debussy. The British Library has not got a second edition of the Catalogue de l'œuvre de Claude Debussy, and I am unable to find it in WorldCat, and so I am unable to verify that Lesure deleted the song, and I can find nothing online to substantiate the statement that he did. But even assuming that he did, his comments published the following year do not suggest that "Ballade à la lune" was not written by Debussy – only that it is lost. In the 2019 English translation edition of Lesure's 2003 – note the date – Claude Debussy: Biographie critique, Lesure says:

His first compositional efforts most likely date from 1879. Furthermore, this is the year mentioned in the memoirs of Paul Vidal, who never tired of hearing particularly "Madrid, princesse des Espagnes" and the "Ballade à la lune." Although the first of these songs, whose text is drawn from Alfred de Musset's Contes d'Espagne et d'Italie, has been rediscovered, the second is unknown to us, as are other songs based on Musset poems that Vidal suggested were written under the influence of Edmond Missa, a fellow student in Massenet's class.

No suggestion there that the song is not by Debussy, and it is included in the index of Debussy’s works at the end of Lesure's book. My feeling is that unless Chuckstreet can provide a WP:RS for the statement that the piece is not by Debussy, we should follow Lesure's 2003/2109 book and revert to the earlier version of our text. – Tim riley talk 08:52, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Should we not revert anyway unless/until a clear citation is found validating Chuckstreet's assertion? That would be consistent with the existing citation.Smerus (talk) 10:51, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Good point. Done. Tim riley talk 11:19, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Yeesh, just because you can't find the catalog yourself doesn't mean we shouldn't follow the catalog. How about this page? Not there. Note that a couple other lost works ARE given catalog numbers (specifically, 'Zuleima' L 64 and 'Barcarolle' L 67). ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 12:37, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

The catalogue to which Chuckstreet referred was the Lesure one. The listing you point to is published by the Centre de Documentation Claude Debussy at the Bibliothèque nationale de France, and the inference you draw might be sustainable if it were not that the same source, the Centre de Documentation Claude Debussy, specifically names "Ballade à la lune" as one of CD's first two compositions in the cited reference in the article. Tim riley talk 15:47, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Um,. Are you serious? I mean, I'm going to GUESS you're not trolling, because I've never seen you do so before....but come on. The link I gave uses the numbers from the Lesure one. I thought that was pretty obvious. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 05:05, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Both versions of Lesure's catalog are reprinted on musicbranz here. Ballade was originally numbered L.1 with Madrid as L.2. In the 2nd edition, Ballade is missing and Madrid gets CD.1. There has to be a reason for this, and I know I've seen a source somewhere that states the reason: I will look for it. musicbrainz does not reprint Lesure's additional notes or supplements (if there is such a thing), so it's possible there's an appendix that lists spurious or doubtful works (but not lost works, as those are listed in the main catalog with CD (L) numbers); maybe Ballade is listed there with an Anh number. Can anyone get a hardcopy and look?

My main point is: there has to be a reason why Ballade was removed from Lesure. I got the "spurious" annotation from another WP page, and Lesure appears to support that; that's why I made the edit here. I think at least a footnote (or a maintenance tag?) on this WP page is necessary. Meanwhile, I'll do some more research.

chuckstreet (talk) 00:47, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

UPDATE: The original Lesure 1977 catalog has 4 appendices: student works, incidental works for friends and family, edited works and orchestrations and transcriptions, and planned works. None for spurious or doubtful, so I suspect such pieces would be listed in the main catalog, unless Lesure changed this practice in the 2nd edition. I found 3 other composers' settings of the Musset poem: Cécile Chaminade, Éduoard Lalo, and Jacques Offenbach, plus a traditional French children's song with the same words. There are also different arrangements of that children's song. Is it possible that Ballade à la lune (C'était dans la nuit brune) is just an ARRANGEMENT by Debussy? Perhaps of the traditional children's song (or maybe even of Offenbach's orchestral version)? In which case it would be listed in Lesure's appendix 3.

Debussy did write several arrangements prior to 1879, so technically Ballade à la lune and Madrid would not be his "first compositions". In fact, he also wrote some fugues and other exercise pieces as a student (listed in Lesure appendix 1) in the years prior to Ballade and Madrid, so those two songs wouldn't be his first ORIGINAL compositions either. The WP text needs to be changed as the statement "first compositions" is inaccurate.

chuckstreet (talk) 03:36, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

This is slightly difficult. There is logic in Chuckstreet's thoughtful remarks, but our obligation to use reliable sources brings us face to face with seemingly contradictory sources all attributable to François Lesure and/or his creation, the Centre de Documentation Claude Debussy. The 2001 version of his catalogue omits the song; the Centre (2007) says sans phrase, "1879 – End of year – First compositions: Madrid, princesse des Espagnes and Ballade à la lune, songs on poems by Alfred de Musset" (Fin d'année – Premières compositions : Madrid, princesse des Espagnes et Ballade à la lune, mélodies sur des poèmes d'Alfred de Musset). Lesure's final book on Debussy, published posthumously in Paris two years after the second edition of his catalogue, includes the sentences I quoted above and continues:

With Pierné and Passérieu, Vidal heard Achille sing his own works, which "filled us with enthusiasm". As Vidal pestered him to play some other songs Achille played a trick on him by memorising several of Emile Pessani's Joyeusetés de bonne compagnie and passing them off as his own.

It at least conceivable that "Ballade à la lune" may have been another song by someone else, passed off by Debussy as his own, but that is pure speculation. As far as I can see we have at present no reliable source for calling the song spurious, and we don't know why Lesure omitted it from the second edition of his catalogue but then included it in his later book. Perhaps a footnote would be the answer, on the lines of "François Lesure omitted 'Ballade à la lune' from the 2001 revision of his catalogue of Debussy's works" – refraining from speculating why – which would flag the point up without contradicting the later Lesure and Centre de Documentation sources. We could also amend the main text to accommodate the point Chuckstreet makes that there were student compositions before the 1879 Musset setting(s). Does that seem a sensible way forward?

Incidentally, Lesure's article mentions neither the revised catalogue nor the 2003 book. I'll put it on my to-do list, but if anyone beats me to I shall not repine. Tim riley talk 11:01, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

I am happier to do something on Tim's lines suggested immediately above, because that enables us to state the situation without second-guessing inexplicit implications of the sources. It seems to me that to go further risks WP:OR, which is often tempting when sources are not explicitly clear, but is really to be avoided.Smerus (talk) 15:58, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Just a point of chronology, Tim riley mentions Lesure later than 2001: there is no "later" really. Lesure died in early 2002. His last work was to revise his 1994 bio of Debussy and revise his 1977 Debussy catalog. I believe the bio revision was not quite finished, and neither was the new version of the catalog. The two updates, in as current a manuscript as could be found or obtained from his estate, were published together posthumously in 2003. Apparently the English translation of the bio (published this year?) doesn't include the catalog.

I believe Tim riley is saying that the bio (in its English translation) still talks about Ballade à la lune as Debussy's first or second composition, but I'm wondering if maybe Lesure just didn't finish updating that part of his bio, OR is the bio or the article refered to taken from Lesure's 1994 edition? Is the recent English translation really of the 2003 revision or the 1994 edition?

In any case, the only way to solve this mystery is to obtain the French 2003 edition containing the catalog and look in the index for the Ballade, and see if it's in an appendix. If it's not there, it could just be an oversight by Lesure or the catalog was unfinished. The book is available through OCLC here, so I may be able to talk to a reference librarian on the phone and simply ask if Ballade is in any part of the catalog.

chuckstreet (talk) 01:03, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

FWIW I got the second catalog from ILL way back when (probably 10 years) and it did match up with the list that's online at the link above and a couple other places. Of course "me remembering" isn't proof, and given it was in French I didn't read the rest of it or anything. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 05:22, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

The 2019 English translation is of the 2003 French edition according to the bibliographical info on the reverse of the title page. My thoughts coincided with those of Chuckstreet on the possibility that Lesure did not get round to revising the page in question (which I can confirm says the same in the first French edition and the English version of the second), though the translator's extensive preface to the English edition don't touch on the point and we obviously can't rely on our own theories. I fear the British Library has not got a copy of the revised 2003 book or I'd toddle down and have a look at it. It is kind of Chuckstreet to offer to contact libraries, and I suggest we wait and see if that throws any light on Lesure's reasons for omitting the song from his revised catalogue. Tim riley talk 14:46, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

I saw this note while comparing various editions for the discussion below. It's indeed not in the catalog in the 2003 edition of the Lesure biographie: it goes directly from "Madrid" (1879) to "Nuit d'étoiles" (1880). The only mention of the "Ballade à la lune" is on p.41, corresponding to p28 of the Rolf translation as quoted above. Harpsichorddude (talk) 20:02, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Harpsichorddude: I haven't had time to check libraries, but if you have a copy of Lesure's 2003 book with the revised catalogue, would you check the appendices please? Is Ballade à la lune in any of the appendices? For instance Student Works or Arrangements. Chuckstreet (talk) 14:13, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Chuckstreet My school's library has Lesure 2003. As for ballade a la lune: the only appendix ("Annexe") that has anything pre-1880 is his conservatory exercises, which are just figured basses and fugues. Ballade a la lune doesn't show up in the index to the catalogue by title either.Harpsichorddude (talk) 20:46, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

What about arrangements? I know Debussy made various arrangements, transcriptions, and modified notations of other composers' works in the 1870s when he was a student. The way the appendices were structured in the old edition is Appendix I student works, Appendix III edited/arranged works. Maybe Lesure decided Ballade a la lune might be by another composer and Debussy only arranged it. Chuckstreet (talk) 02:15, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Chuckstreet The 2003 has the following 4 appendices: scholarly exercises, domestic works, editions/orchestrations/transcriptions, and unrealised projects. The arrangements section begins with 1880 transcription of Swan Lake for 4 hands and has nothing with Ballade in the title.Harpsichorddude (talk) 20:54, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Ok so....I know it's actually on the List page but come on, you can't just assign a piece a catalog number like that that has no bearing in reality. Obvious WP:OR there. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 12:26, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

About some references

Hi all. This is a great article that I have enjoyed reading. However, after reviewing all references used in it, I have seen that there are some of them with no relation with any book listed in Sources section:

• Walsh (2003): ref. 13 and note 11.
• Nichols (2000): ref. 70 and 71.
• Nectoux: ref. 30, 38, 56, and 65.
• Schmidtz: ref. 80.
• Simeone: ref. 67, which of all books?
• Nicholas, p. 94: ref. 67, does it means Nichols? In that case, which book?
• Howat (2003): ref. 117.
• Wheeldon (2001): ref. 131, does it means Wheeldon (2011)?

Please, could anyone review these issues and clarify them? Kind regards and thanks in advance. Obelix83 (talk) 00:10, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for this. I'll have look over the next few days. I suspect I shall not be the only one doing so. Tim riley talk 11:51, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

thanks, I will join Tim in looking through these.--Smerus (talk) 11:55, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

I've sorted (I think) nn. 67 and 117. Others, like (eg) Nectoux may need to await reopening of libraries in the near future. --Smerus (talk) 12:18, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

I've added Nectoux, whose well-thumbed volume is frequently off my shelves. How idiotic of me not to list it in the sources! Tim riley talk 12:28, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

"In 1900 Debussy began attending meetings of Les Apaches..."

Did he? I thought he distanced himself from the group, although they admired him. This, at least, is what the source given on the Les Apaches page states.--Glissando1234567890 (talk) 11:59, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

I think you may well be right. I think I probably wrote that sentence, but I can't now recall why. I'll do a bit of research. Meanwhile, does anyone else have thoughts on this? Tim riley talk 13:01, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

This seems to check out. After a quick internet search, I haven't heard Debussy referred to as a member of Les Apaches, but rather as an inspiration from without. The book referenced by the Les Apaches page states: "The composer kept his distance from the group, never attending an Apache gathering," which seems fairly unambiguous. Another article refers to a group of composers as "Debussy and two members of Les Apaches". Noahfgodard (talk) 14:29, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

References

I have ordered the relevant source books from the British Library, and will report back as soon as possible. Tim riley talk 11:58, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! Hopefully some conclusive evidence is found one way or the other. Noahfgodard (talk) 20:46, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

I apologise for editing this paragraph - I hadn't seen your request to stop editing until a conclusion was reached. If I may make a suggestion, does it not make more sense to edit the paragraph to state that he was not a member (in accordance with our sources and the Les Apaches page) until proven otherwise? Just a suggestion. Thank you, Glissando1234567890 (talk) 20:31, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

@Glissando1234567890:Since this is a featured article, I believe the standard procedure for edits like this one is to keep the article in its current form until consensus is reached that the change should be made. Noahfgodard (talk) 20:45, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

We progress. I have satisfied myself, and hope to satisfy other editors, that Glissando's point is 100 per cent correct. I have gathered a batch of sources and will in the next couple of days draft a replacement sentence for the paragraph in question and submit it here for approval. Tim riley talk 15:42, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Excellent. Many thanks to you! Noahfgodard (talk) 23:13, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Will this do?

From around 1900 Debussy's music became a focus and inspiration for an informal group of innovative young artists, poets, critics, and musicians began meeting in Paris. They called themselves Les Apaches – roughly "The Hooligans" – to represent their status as "artistic outcasts".[ref 1] The membership was fluid, but at various times included Maurice Ravel, Ricardo Viñes, Igor Stravinsky and Manuel de Falla. Footnote: Other members were the composers Florent Schmitt, Maurice Delage and Paul Ladmirault, the poets Léon-Paul Fargue and Tristan Klingsor, the painter Paul Sordes and the critic Michel Calvocoressi.[ref 2][ref 3] Debussy was on friendly terms with several of the Apaches, but never attended one of their meetings.[ref 4]

(Ref 1 = Orenstein, p. 28; ref 2 = Nichols (1977), p. 20; and Orenstein, p. 28; ref3 = Pasler, Jann. "Stravinsky and the Apaches", The Musical Times, June 1982, pp. 403–407 etc; ref 4 = Kelly and Murphy, p. 156; and Pasler Jan. [http://www.jstor.com/stable/23358736 "Debussy the man, his music, and his legacy: an overview of current research", Notes, December 2012, p. 201 (subscription required))

Comments/emendations cordially invited − Tim riley talk 09:38, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

@Tim riley: The paragraph is very good; my only suggestion would be to make some minor changes in the first sentence. Surely it should read: ... "an informal group of innovative young artists, poets, critics, and musicians who began meeting in Paris in the early years of the 20th Century". I'm sorry if I was somewhat pushy in changing the paragraph - your work on this has been excellent, thank you! Glissando1234567890 (talk) 11:03, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Indeed. I'll add the missing word if we agree the rest of the draft. Tim riley talk 11:16, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

@Tim riley: Looks great to me (with Glissando's suggestion in mind). Noahfgodard (talk) 16:13, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Good. I'll leave the thread open for a day or two more and then do the necessary. I propose to keep very quiet about my original clanger, and the sooner it is amended the better. I am most grateful to Glissando and Noah for helpful comments here. Tim riley talk 19:21, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

A day or two! Ahem, but now finally done. Tim riley talk 09:38, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

The word "mistress"

Many of Debussy's relationships are referred to in this article but this is the only section in which the woman in a a consenting relationship between two adults is described using the old-fashioned word "mistress" which traditionally implies that a single woman is being "kept" by a wealthier married man. It is a word that is now infrequently used in art historical texts given the sexist possessive subtext (she is "his" mistress). I changed it to "lover' which is how all of his other lovers were described along with "in a relationship" or "an affair" (which was used in the very next sentence to describe THIS particular relationship) Another user changed it back to "mistress." I respectfully submit that "mistress" is inappropriate should not be used to describe women in relationships unless there is clear evidence that they're being "supported" financially in order to procure their availability. The user who changed it back to mistress suggested we discuss it in talk. Here is the passage: "Among the members of the class was Marie Vasnier; Debussy was greatly taken with her, and she inspired him to compose: he wrote 27 songs dedicated to her during their seven-year relationship.[27] She was the wife of Henri Vasnier, a prominent civil servant, and much younger than her husband. She soon became Debussy's mistress as well as his muse. Whether Vasnier was content to tolerate his wife's affair with the young student or was simply unaware of it is not clear, but he and Debussy remained on excellent terms, and he continued to encourage the composer in his career.[28]"

I also don't think her age is particularly relevant in this context but that's for another discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Venndiagram8 (talk • contribs) 05:16, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Venndiagram8, just a friendly reminder to sign your post.4meter4 (talk) 05:58, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Just a general comment, but I disagree that in the context of 19th century France the term mistress is not used in current scholarly literature. On the contrary, here and here are recent scholarly work using it boldly in the title. The courtesan or mistress had a unique and important social role in French society at that time which has been the subject of much scholarship. Given that French society had social rules, customs, and an entire sub-culture built around mistresses at that time (such as salon culture which had a huge impact on art, science, literature, etc) swapping out the term lover doesn’t really seem appropriate or accurate to the historical period. Anybody can be a lover; not everyone can embody the important societal role of the mistress in 19th century France; a group of women who wielded a considerable amount of power and influence over French society, politics, and it’s achievements in many academic fields. If we were writing on a contemporary person I would absolutely agree that the term lover is far more appropriate because the use of the word mistress today is horribly sexist. However, that is not the case when writing about women living in 19th century France where being a mistress was a position in society that had set rules, and functions and customs, and provided certain opportunities and disadvantages for women in that societal role. Thus the tremendous amount of literature on mistresses of the era in women’s studies, gender studies, queer studies, French studies, etc. 4meter4 (talk) 06:22, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

I have checked Fowler, the OED, Chambers, Collins and none of them even hints at the interpretation proposed by Venndiagram8 that there is any financial support involved. Fowler does not mention the term at all, and these are the relevant dictionary definitions:

• OED: A woman other than his wife with whom a man has a long-lasting sexual relationship.
• Chambers: the female lover of a man married to another woman.
• Collins: A married man's mistress is a woman who is not his wife and with whom he is having a sexual relationship.

None of the three mentions any moral implications in the use of the word, but as to whether it is judgmental and sexist if applied to a 21st-century woman, I concur with 4meter4 that it is, but also that it is the right word in its historical context. You can see recent references to 19th-century composers' mistresses here (Scriabin) and here (Liszt). Even The Guardian (a paper so politically correct that its style guide bans the use of the term "politically correct") though frowning on the use of "mistress" for present-day women is specifically fine with its use in a historical contect. But there is also a question of accuracy. Two of the three dictionary definitions, above, are specific and the other implies that only a married man can have a mistress. I wasn't aware of this until I looked the word up in the three dictionaries just now. Debussy was unmarried at that stage of his life. Had he been married I should have resisted changing "mistress" to "lover" but as he wasn't I think, for reasons of lexicographical precision rather than ephemeral political correctness, we should do so. Comments invited. – Tim riley talk 09:22, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Sounds like a reasonable decision to me. I would support that.4meter4 (talk) 09:33, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Sorry about not signing. Agree, given that he was not married, it is inaccurate. And given that it's redundant with a previous accurate sentence- "Debussy was greatly taken with her, and she inspired him to compose: he wrote 27 songs dedicated to her during their seven-year relationship.[27]" - can we agree to delete it?

Also, just a thought for the future: simply because a description is historically common, doesn't mean it needs to be continued, particularly where it implies ownership or lower value. The term "slaves" is being replaced in many places (including at Mount Vernon and Monticello for instance) with "enslaved people". I think there's a precedent for dropping the term mistress as well, not purging it from 19th century novels but certainly from 21st century descriptions of female artists. Thanks! Venndiagram8 (talk) 13:41, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

I'll leave the thread open for a few days lest any other editors want to comment, and if not will make the agreed alteration. Tim riley talk 16:10, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Now attended to. Thanks to all for input. Tim riley talk 13:48, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

The études

An IP keeps changing "His piano works include two books of Préludes and one of Études" to read "… and two of Études". DBaK has commented, "I'm not sure this is correct as editions seem to vary", and I concur. Grove (under the impeccable imprimatur of François Lesure and Roy Howat) lists them as two books, but they are referred to in numerous articles in scholarly journals as the "Douze études". It seems they are a single set, written in the same period and numbered consecutively from 1 to 12, but were published simultaneously in two volumes by Durand: Premier livre, études 1 à 6 and Deuxieme livre études 7 à 12. Similarly in London, I see from The Musical Times for October 1916, they were published simultaneously in two volumes. This chimes with DBaK's comments, I think, and I suggest we reword to read something like "His piano works include sets of 24 Préludes and 12 Études". Thoughts, please, colleagues. – Tim riley talk 08:18, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Agree, absolutely. If we get too hung up on the concept of a "book" and what exactly was published when and by whom – like, what Debussy actually wrote vs. the actual bits of paper and how they were bound etc – then we are wasting energy on something very unimportant. If we say "set" or "collection" or "bumper fun pack with free posable action figure" or whatever then we avoid the whole thing and everyone is, or should be, happy. Strong support, and best wishes to all DBaK (talk) 08:29, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Tim and DBaK, absolutely right, I agree with proposed rewrite. Which would concur with the article Études (Debussy). The action figure I presume would be M. Czerny?--Smerus (talk) 13:39, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Many thanks for input, gentlemen. I've tweaked accordingly. Tim riley talk 16:10, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Prix de rome

If the current version has issues of redundancy and overly colorful word choice, why shouldn't it be changed? And surely you agree it's good to strive for consistency of punctuation? Wuffuwwuf (talk) 14:57, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

• WP:IDONTLIKE is not in itself a justification for an edit, especially for an FA-status article. If you have concerns, you are welcome to raise them at this talk page for discussion.--Smerus (talk) 16:21, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
  • The page WP:IDONTLIKE you cite is about discussions regarding deleting whole articles, not changing wording or making punctuation consistent. Wuffuwwuf (talk) 17:13, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
    • I'm with you on consistency of punctuation, and any tweaking in that regard is a good thing. For a beginner you seem to assume a remarkable mastery of the manual of style, which is something I haven't managed in sixteen years here. Otherwise, if the current version has "issues" - which only you seem to think it has - they can certainly be discussed here, but your objections such as suggesting that "boorish" is not a word known by Americans (it is in Merriam-Webster without any caveat) may or may not receive a consensus in favour. As you are new to Wikipedia it may be useful if I explain that a "featured article" such as this one has been through a rigorous review by experienced editors, and although further improvement is perfectly conceivable it is on the whole as well to refrain from barging in on a single-handed campaign to change the text. I hope you find this helpful, and I wish you happy editing. Tim riley talk 17:47, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
      • Fair enough. Yes, it's true I'm not familiar with what's involved in a featured article. About boorish, I'm not quite saying that it's unknown by Americans, but rather that it is used by them far less commonly and less lightly. Thank you for agreeing about the quotation marks—if no one else objects I'll change them later. Wuffuwwuf (talk) 17:58, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
        • That's a gracious response − thank you! You display the cooperative and unconfrontational approach we hope for (but do not always get) on Wikipedia. Tim riley talk 18:02, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

String quartet?

In the third paragraph of the lede, wouldn't it be wise to include his string quartet? Perhaps change the last sentence to "In his final years, he focused on chamber music, completing three of six planned sonatas for different combinations of instruments as well as a string quartet." It doesn't have to be worded exactly this way, but at least give it a mention. It's one of his most important and innovative works. Wretchskull (talk) 09:33, 4 July 2022 (UTC) Ah wait... I just realized that it isn't really a late work like his sonatas. Including it now looks impossible.. Wretchskull (talk) 09:37, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Just so, though I entirely concur as to its merits. Tim riley talk 10:02, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Why would you want to include a false statement like that? ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 12:32, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Hence my second comment. Wretchskull (talk) 12:40, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Parentheses

Shouldn't the bolded name, in the case Achille, in the lead be without parentheses, as it's the name he was registered with at birth, according to the note attached to it; I personally have never seen such use of parentheses in an article. Saksapoiss (talk) 23:45, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

We are following the practice of Grove's Dictionary of Music and Musicians, in which the article, by François Lesure and Roy Howat, opens with the name given as "Debussy, (Achille-)Claude". Robert Orledge's article in The Oxford Companion to Music is also headed "Debussy, (Achille-)Claude". See also Baker's Biographical Dictionary of Musicians, in which the relevant article likewise begins "Debussy, (Achille-)Claude". – Tim riley talk 08:25, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

The addition of a minimalist infobox

Would anyone still be in favor of adding an infobox? I think we might be able to use Template:Infobox classical composer. We could keep the minimalistic look by merely moving the image and adding a birth date and link to the list of compositions. GuardianH (talk) 09:46, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Not a good idea. A "minimalist" info-box would be as useless as the one for the Beethoven article. As for linking from a box to the article on Debussy's works, if you look at Wikipedia's rules you will see that an info-box is supposed to summarise what is in the article. Directing the poor reader to another article altogether is not what the rules call for. Tim riley talk 11:00, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

The proposal rules itself out: the birthdate is given in the first line of the article, and as Tim riley points out, the link to a workslist is inappropriate. Such an infobox (and, imo, any other sort of infobox) would trivialize rather than enhance.--Smerus (talk) 08:39, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't believe that that infobox is useless. It gives the age at death at-a-glance. I must say that in my many years of reading Wikipedia articles, the only ones that don't include such infoboxes with that piece of basic informaiton are incomplete articles on minor figures. 2600:4041:4497:4C00:ADAA:F70D:5CFF:78D4 (talk) 21:38, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

You might like to look at the Featured Articles on a dozen or so French and English composers. Nobody at FAC thought an info-box would be helpful to readers. Tim riley talk 22:17, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Fascinating that those urging infoboxes consistently go on about birth dates and death dates, both of which are always in the first line of any article (and to obtain either of which there is no evidence that most readers go to Wikipedia). Perhaps they have weak left eyes. In fact those who feel an urge to look up birth or death dates in Wikipedia can save themselves the trouble; just enter the name on Google and at the head of the links will come the Wikipedia article, together with a summary which by algorithm provides this precious information. --Smerus (talk) 08:56, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

And yet it seems that those who don't want infoboxes consistently belittle those who don't want to use the encyclopedia in the same way they do. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 06:09, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Is it a 'belittlement' to query the sense of an argument? And in the case of the present discussion, what moral or intellectual superiority is obtained by presenting those who don't like infoboxes as 'consistent belittlers'? I don't claim to know in what ways, or why, different readers may want to use WP. But the arguments in this discussion in favour of infoboxes are based on the assumption that key issues readers wish to know are birth and death dates; no reason is given to support this assumption - which it seems to me genuinely belittles WP users. And I have pointed out that in any case this information is available on Google, so the browser obviates any need to go to WP for it. As one of the major arguments presented for infoboxes is that they supposedly obviate the need to look for information in an article, the existence of the Google alogrithm is a further reason to deprecate infoboxes. --Smerus (talk) 09:26, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

That's a very sound summary, and I would add that I don't know any editor who is opposed to info-boxes where they can contain useful information. (I put one in the most recent article I wrote on a musical topic and I added several mini i-boxes within the article to provide summary info.) But when there is nothing useful one can put in an i-box it makes Wikipedia look silly to add one saying it. Tim riley talk 20:58, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Debussy's opinion and position

Debussy rejected the term "impressionism" but embraced the symbolist literary form for his music. I seek to include this in the introductory description. Debussy is also ranked not only as influential in the 20th c. but as being among the top composers of all time. The page has an incomplete short description. Muyiwa Austin (talk) 18:00, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

This article has been through Wikipedia's most rigorous review processes – Peer Review and Featured Article Candidacy. You clearly think you know better than the authors and all the reviewers. Let us see if you can obtain a consensus for your view. Tim riley talk 18:32, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

The lead already includes his symbolist influence "He was greatly influenced by the Symbolist poetic movement of the later 19th century". The "An innovative voice in musical style, Debussy was among the most influential composers." is uncited puffery that is not nearly as meaningful as specifying the period in which he was most influential ("late 19th and early 20th centuries"). I see neither changes as improvements. Aza24 (talk) 18:39, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Did you think it was "uncited puffery" before or after you removed my BBC citation? The lead condescendingly places debussy on a crowded list of 19th/20th c. influential composers. Such desc. is wrong as debussy's innovation is widely acknowkedged to have altered the course of musical history. Debussy steadfastly denied any links between his music and impressionism, if this is included, then why not side by side with the composer's own description of his own music for the sake if exposition? Muyiwa Austin (talk) 20:19, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Well, let us see if anyone else agrees with you. That is how Wikipedia works. Tim riley talk 20:20, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Actually it was I and not Aza24 who first reverted Muyiwa Austin's edits, at which time I assumed good faith on the latter's part. I remain satisfied that this reversion was appropriate, and agree with the comments of Aza24.--Smerus (talk) 09:56, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

I too agree with Aza24. The fact that Muyiwa Austin's repeated insertion was reverted by three different editors might perhaps be taken as a bit of a hint... Tim riley talk 21:17, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Reverted, and for what reason? Just to further drag wikipedia into the cesspool of factual arbitration. My additions were not whimsical, they are given credence to by various leading classical publications including several reputable newsmedia yet i can't include obviously because of misplaced objectivity. Muyiwa Austin (talk) 19:36, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Reverted, Muyiwa Austin, because nobody so far agrees with you despite your "cesspool of factual arbitration" and "misplaced objectivity". You might perhaps consider the possibility that everyone else is right and you are wrong. Wikipedia is quick to correct errors: see the next section, where a substantive suggestion has been made and duly dealt with. Tim riley talk 20:13, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Achille

I'm looking and not fully understanding why 'Achille' was removed from his name in bold, but its pronounciation was left up? Is his name Achille-Claude or not? Is it hyphenated? what's the right way to do this "Claude Debussy (French: [aʃil klod dəbysi]; 22 August 1862 – 25 March 1918" BlooTannery (talk) 15:41, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

You're quite right. Someone mistakenly removed the Achille a few weeks ago while seeking to remedy some vandalism (of which I fear Debussy's article suffers a lot). I'll put it back again. We follow the practice of Grove's Dictionary of Music and Musicians, in which the article, by François Lesure and Roy Howat, opens with the name given as "Debussy, (Achille-)Claude". Robert Orledge's article in The Oxford Companion to Music is also headed "Debussy, (Achille-)Claude". See also Baker's Biographical Dictionary of Musicians, in which the relevant article likewise begins "Debussy, (Achille-)Claude". For the composer's convoluted use of his given names, see footnote 1 of the article. Tim riley talk 16:10, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Ah, fantastic. Thanks for the comment! Another note, very upset to learn that at times he billed himself as 'Claude de Bussy' BlooTannery (talk) 15:32, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Quite so. I could follow his lead and posh up my surname by making it "Rye-Leigh", but I won't. Tim riley talk 16:49, 2 December 2022 (UTC)