Jump to content

Talk:John Adams (composer)/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Composer project review

I've reviewed this article as part of the Composers project review of its B-class articles. This article is a B, but only barely, in my opinion. The biographical details are sparse, and the article is structured very poorly. My full review is on the comments page; questions and comments can be left here or on my talk page. Magic♪piano 22:05, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

The JSTOR links in the article (in the "Musical style" section) were dead and have been removed. Since they were also unlabeled, there is no citation that can be given now at those points. JSTOR has changed its site and URLS, so the only way to retrieve this information and these links would be to contact JSTOR and give them the old links and ask for updated URLs. I will let the original author of the section involved do that. Here is the last iteration of the article that contains the (outdated) JSTOR links: http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=John_Adams_(composer)&oldid=269973358 ~~ Softlavender (talk) 22:53, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

suggestions

having his comment about being blacklisted should not be in the lead, but in a section on his personal life. it gives it undue weight to be there, regardless of its relevancy. also, is he off the list with the new admin?. and his autobiography is not further reading, but is one of his works, and should go there. i am not going to make changes, as this seems to be a mature article, and i am still new to what i would call higher level editing.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:07, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Good point: I've moved the "blacklisted" comment. I don't know about any follow up. You may be right about his autobiography too; he is, however, considered a "composer" rather than a "writer" and the list of works should probably reflect this fact. The autobiography might have been shadow written, anyway, so not actually "his" work. --Jubilee♫clipman 15:34, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Actually he seems to do a good bit of writing. His extensive blog at earbox.com has a great deal of good stuff, very well written. Kind of a mix of humor and serious stuff, almost all irreverent. Opus131 (talk) 22:25, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation at top of page

There needs to be a disambiguation link for John Adams vs. John Luther Adams, certainly, but the problem with the way it stands now is that they are BOTH often considered post-minimalist composers. How would we phrase a replacement? Leoniceno (talk) 21:48, 10 December 2009 (UTC) I changed the topnote, I think it works pretty well. Leoniceno (talk) 04:57, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Move work to new section?

I propose that we move "The Gospel According to the Other Mary" from the "Chorus" section to "Opera," as it's a sequel to "El Nino" and involves soloists and orchestra in addition to chorus. 99.63.105.41 (talk) 08:15, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Klinghoffer section

The section in the main article regarding controversy over The Death of Klinghoffer is way too long, especially since it just repeats much of the dedicated DoK article, and since Adams didn't even write the libretto. It's also lopsidedly negative, probably because the DoK article is under higher scrutiny. I tried to clean it up, leaving brief arguments from both sides of the debate, but that change was reverted wholesale. Before getting into an edit war, I'd like to get other editors' opinions about what should remain here. I obviously favor keeping just a introductory mention with a link to the main article here, and leaving the bulk of the information where it belongs, in the Death of Klinghoffer article. —Torc. (Talk.) 22:52, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

  • I'll take a look over the next few days, with an eye towards seeing if I can streamline it at all without deleting substance of note. As widely famous as Adams is for his work, a major component of his RS coverage is for the Klinhoffer opera, and the controversy relating to it, so it is important not to give that short shrift here.see some of these 71,000 google hits ... and even his recent news google hits related to it exceed 1,000. So, we don't want to give coverage of what he is likely most famous for short shrift in his own bio. But perhaps there is a way to streamline it, without hacking out the substance. Epeefleche (talk) 23:06, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
The substance is all duplicated anyway, so nothing would be "hacked" away. There's a Rothstein quote in the opening section that's irrelevant to the controversy, a whole paragraph about the first amendment that is essentially a strawman -- whether there's a first amendment "right" to perform the work has never been seriously questioned. There's six quotes critical of the work -- most adding nothing new or informative -- and one supporting it. We could add offsetting positive quotes, but the section is already bloated and redundant, and it all belongs on the DoK page anyway. The Ghits count really isn't that remarkable either: "John Adams" Nixon gets 450k, "John Adams" Chairman gets 383k, "John Adams" composer gets 396k, and "John Adams" short ride gets 96k. Saying he's "likely most famous" for Klinghoffer is patently false. There's simply no reason to give it the undue weight on his main page that it has. I'll take another shot, this time with multiple edits, so it's easier to debate individual items. —Torc. (Talk.) 19:47, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
You wrote "Before getting into an edit war, I'd like to get other editors' opinions." Upon receipt of a contrary opinion, disagreeing with yours, you went back to hacking away at the section. That's the sort of edit warring you had indicated you wanted to avoid. Please stop. When you ask for an opinion, and it disagrees with your position, that is not license to start hacking away again.
Furthermore, your rationale is rife with OR and POV. New York Times critic Edward Rothstein is certainly a notable person here, yet you delete his quote on the basis of your POV-ridden IDONTLIKEIT view that what he wrote in the New York Times is irrelevant. Sorry -- but the view of the NY Time critic that it is relevant is weightier than the view of a wp editor who disagrees with the critic's view. If you want to add quotes supportive of the opera, by notable people, do it. If they exist. If they don't exist -- well, NPOV does not mean we need an equal number of quotes, if that does not reflect the real world.
And oh -- of course the "John Adams"/composer search doesn't show his fame for this opera vis-a-vis his fame for other works in RSs. It is all-encompassing. For example, on the wp disambig page, etc, it will mention he is a composer, without mentioning any opera. So?
And you make a similar, of course unintenional, mistake in your search on John Adams and chairman. Try his name and the piece he wrote. John Adams and The Chairman Dances. You get 23K. Clearly less notable. I assume that your presenting the above misleading numbers was simply a mistake on your part. And not an effort to mislead. But either is bad, as it can mislead readers. Epeefleche (talk) 22:05, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
As you don't have consensus for your hacking (after having sought it on this page!), I would urge you to revert yourself, and not engage in edit warring.Epeefleche (talk) 22:05, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
I believe my edits present both sides equally and improved the section overall. There is no OR in it, and everything is sourced and on topic. And yes, I do have license to continue working on the article while waiting for other input. I didn't just revert your revert, which would be edit warring, I completely rewrote and improved the section piece by piece, making it easier for anybody to discuss specific edits. I removed two Rothstein quotes, not because I didn't like them, but because they were off-topic: one simply criticized Adams' music, which isn't relevant in a section dedicated to debate whether the opera is antisemitic; the other was about the TV adaptation, in reference to how the movie differed from the opera. If there are specific edits I made that you have a problem with, please feel free to raise them, but the section was a wreck before and is definitely improved now. But please lay off the false accusations of OR and POV. —Torc. (Talk.) 21:36, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Excuse me. You asked for comment before beginning an "edit war". Comment disagreed with you. You then anyway started an edit war. In conflict with the comment you received. And your above "analysis" suffers from the indicated flaws. And an obviously misleading google search "result". How is all of this a reflection of your good faith? Which is an assumption, but one you can rebut by your behavior. Once again, please exhibit good faith by self-reverting. Epeefleche (talk) 02:55, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
I will not, and have not exhibited bad faith. When I said I wanted to avoid an edit war, it was based on your wholesale revert, which was in bad form (see Help:Reverting. You had no reason to assume my initial edit, or any subsequent edit was in bad faith. In fact, my second edits took your advice into consideration -- I still think the section is too long and redundant with the main DoK article. If you think I have done anything inappropriate, please feel free to report through the official channels. I would also suggest that if you read WP:EW you'd understand that I have not been engaging in such. I still invite you to point out specific edits you disagree with, but expecting me to revert everything is just absurd. —Torc. (Talk.) 01:21, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
You have exhibited manifest bad faith. Step 1 - say that rather than edit war, you seek input. Step 2 - upon input that disagrees with you, you immediately flatly ignore it and go ahead and immediately edit war. It's all clear from the above and the article edit history. You certainly failed to be your word. Further -- see the above discussion where you misrepresent google searches. This looks quite bad. Especially, together. I again urge you to self-revert. Epeefleche (talk) 04:16, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
No. If you have a problem with the content of a specific edit I made, let's discuss it, but I'm done debating whether my edits were in good faith with you. —Torc. (Talk.) 17:43, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

missing

How can Fearful Symmetries not have its own article? Given its use by multiple dance companies for major works, it's certainly notable enough. GreaseballNYC (talk) 02:14, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on John Adams (composer). 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.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 00:55, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Violin Concerto, Mvt. III "Toccare"?

Does anyone know why the section titled "Violin Concerto, Mvt. III "Toccare"" has that title? It doesn't mention that movement at all. Squandermania (talk) 20:17, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

No, this is odd. I removed that subheading to merge it into the larger secion. Noahfgodard (talk) 20:38, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Up until this edit on 19 May 2015, there were two paragraphs in that section dealing with the third movement of the Violin Concerto. They were unsourced, however, and were deleted for that reason. Apparently the editor did not notice the section header.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 20:40, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Even the fact that "Style and analysis" is a subsection of "Musical style" is really strange to me. I think the former should be integrated into the latter. Squandermania (talk) 23:36, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
I could not possibly disagree with you less. There was absolutely nothing analytical in that subsection anyway, so I have been BOLD and done as you suggest.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 00:04, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Split list of works?

I like the suggested idea to split off the list of works into its own article. I'm happy to set it up, but I just wanted to check that nobody would be opposed to such a move. Any thoughts? Noahfgodard (talk) 03:10, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

  • Oppose. I disagree with that. If anything should be split off, it's the "Awards and recognition" section, which is not crucial. But we should not make people go to an entirely different page to easily view his works. Softlavender (talk) 23:49, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose As of now, we're at 62,192 bytes, but its prose only constitutes 24,443, or not even 4,000 words, which is fine according to Wikipedia:Article size (according to the WP:SIZERULE less than 40K does not merit splitting on size alone). The tables, which is where the split is suggested, should not be included in size concerns. See articleinfo on wmflabs.org. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:03, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
  • @Softlavender and Walter Görlitz: Understood; you both make good points. Given that, how would you feel about dividing the list of works with {{col-2}}, just to make the article somewhat neater/easier to navigate? Noahfgodard (talk) 20:22, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
    • Navigate to what? Fixed column widths are disaster for mobile devices or readers with a fixed narrow width. If anything, {{div col}} might be appropriate if applied to each section, but even then, the list seems fine to me. I don't see readers manually scrolling to the bottom of the page. If they're heading to the references, it's from clicking on a reference. CTRL-END (or command-End on Mac) will get you to the bottom on a desktop as well. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:17, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
    • No, double columns would not work well with lists of works. Softlavender (talk) 05:19, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now – I would Support if/when the article grows in size as it is standard for composer articles to have a list of composition pages, especially when the composer wrote many works – at the moment it doesn't seem so prudent. I would support a split of the awards section as well. I have adjusted the list of works section to avoid having such a lengthy TOC. Aza24 (talk) 03:37, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:02, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

John Adams in Civ 4

It should appear on the article the presence of Adam's music on the game Civilization 4, which has sold a couple million units, and is credited as a major historic title of the strategy video games subculture. The inclusion of his music here has most probably done more to make the composer break the mainstream culture (outside self serving academic circles) than any other medium or event. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.151.90.50 (talk) 22:18, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Should it? Are there sources that discuss it at length (as opposed to passing mentions in discussions about the video game)? The principle that not everything that a notable subject does comes into play here. Not every place that a notable composer's work is used needs to be discussed either. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:50, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

To add to article

To add to this article: the year Adams married Deborah O'Grady. 173.88.246.138 (talk) 12:17, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:John_Adams_(composer)/Archive_2&oldid=1136266748"