Talk:Samuel Barber

Middle name

After relying for many years on Grove for Barber's middle name (Osmond), an anonymous editor now pointed out that the Library of Congress uses "Osborne": https://www.loc.gov/item/ihas.200182572/ and http://id.loc.gov/authorities/names/n81015460.html, the latter acknowledging Grove's "Osmond". Should we list both, or none? Wikidata lists him as "Samuel Osborne Barber II". -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 07:10, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

It looks like a poke in the eye for Grove, which I, too, had trusted up until now. The authoritative biography by Barbara Heyman states on p. 7: "Samuel Osborne Barber II—named after his paternal grandfather ...". Of course, the New Grove article is by the self-same Barbara Heyman, though the text of the article lacks any reference to the middle name. Peter Dickinson's more recent book (2010) also gives "Osborne" (on p. 3), with the remark "the full name the composer later gave up", but refers to the grandfather only as "the first Samuel O. Barber". If Grove's "Osmond" is to be acknowledged, there should be some indication that it is likely a typo.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 01:08, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

So "Osborne" should be restored in the opening sentence, and a footnote, "Heyman in Grove 2001 gives 'Ormond' as his middle name", should be added? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 07:26, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Given that Heyman gives "Osborne" in her biography, that would be misleading, wouldn't it?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 03:51, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't understand why that would be misleading. Heyman's entry in Grove is headed "Barber, Samuel (Osmond)" (see doi:10.1093/gmo/9781561592630.article.01994), and her biography of Barber on page 7, as you helpfully pointed out, along with the LoC, gives "Ormond". That looks like a contradiction between citations, 2 from the same author, that may need an explanation. I think most readers would think that Heyman is responsible for the headword in Grove. But I still think that sweeping "Osmond" under the carpet is a valid avenue. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:24, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

"Osborne", of course, not "Ormond". I think it would be misleading if we were to give "Osborne" as the middle name, with a footnote saying only that Heyman in NG gives "Osmond", without noting the contradictory information in her biography. The authority of NG, combined with the name of the leading scholar on the subject, requires that attention be called to Heyman's contradictory evidence. We cannot prove (or even speculate, without a reliable source) that the middle name as given in NG is merely a typo or a mistake made by a copy editor, rather than the opinion of the author in 2001, as updated since the 1992 biography, but we can at least point out the facts.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 00:04, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

🤦 – how did I come up with "Ormond"? I'm obviously not qualified to clarify this mess and will leave it to more competent editors. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 07:54, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Probably the same way NG came up with "Osmond". Or was it "Osgood", or "Onslow", or "Osbert", or "Oswood"? It might just "oswell" have been any of them.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 19:10, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Infobox

I went to add an infobox to Samuel Barber's page, and saw a note pleading not to add an infobox, due to the sanctity of composer-articles or whatever.

The BRD-philosophy demands that contentious changes such as this be discussed before changes are made, so I want to ask: Is anyone opposed to adding an infobox to Samuel Barber? Wtfduud (talk) 16:44, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Adding an infobox is, in my view, a good idea. I don't see the reasons for not doing so spelled out anywhere (do I just not know my way round?).

The article would benefit from something about Barber's personal life, especially his relationship with Menotti. Details have been transmitted in a most professional way by the BBC Radio 3 series "Composer of the Week" in July 2023, and are available on Podcast. Foiled circuitous wanderer (talk) 15:39, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Support adding an infobox per what I said in 2012. It might look like Menotti's. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:23, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Most celebrated composer?

The text calls Barber "one of the most celebrated composers of the 20th century." This may be true for the United States, but internationally Barber is not well known. Of composers who did not survive into the 21st century only Ives, Gershwin, Copland, and Leonard Bernstein (and John Cage, though not much played) are comparable in international fame to major European 20th century composers like Bartók, Britten, Hindemith, Lutoslawski, Prokofiev, Ravel, Schönberg, Shostakovitch, Stravinsky, etc.. Barber, along with his contemporaries Howard Hanson, David Diamond and other American mid-century "Late Romantic" (tonal) composers are largely ignored in Europe, which produced a large collection of comparable composers of its own, most of whose fame is likewise limited to their respective homelands. Death Bredon (talk) 16:18, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

I have removed the phrase – which regardless of the merits appears surprisingly not to be verified in the body. Additionally removed Donal Henahan's quotation which seems undue with just primary sourcing – as in, a secondary source about so strong a claim is needed to suggest including it. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 19:31, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

I believe sources pretty much widely agree with the assessment that Barber was one of the most celebrated composers of the 20th century. I added an additional quote from The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians which makes that claim. Also, as the winner of the Rome Prize, the president of International Music Council of the United Nations, and a high profile visit to the Soviet Union during the Cold War, I think the claim that Barber was not well known outside the United States is dubious. He also conducted his symphonic works and operas with major ensembles internationally during his career, and has been recorded by most major European ensembles. Adagio for Strings alone has dozens of recordings. One has to only search YouTube for recent live concerts of his music by orchestras like the Berlin Philharmonic, Royal Philharmonic, etc. The claim that he is ignored or overlooked is simply not accurate. Best.4meter4 (talk) 20:16, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Thanks for digging that up – Heyman's quote is probably too long for the prose but works as a citation. Henahan's poetical quotation, however, remains seemingly undue – see Shakespeare for an example of a quotation (by Ben Jonson) which is cited to a secondary source attesting to the relevance of the quotation. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 20:36, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

I think removing critical assessment by Donal Henahan, a well known and widely respected music critic and authority on classical music who won the Pulitzer Prize for Criticism, in a major paper known for its high quality criticism like The New York Times is not good editorial judgment; particularly when such judgement is in alignment with reference works like Grove. Likewise, Heyman is the only major biographer on Barber and is considered the leading scholar on the composer. The use of quotations by an expert on an artist is actually what we are supposed to do in terms of writing on the critical assessment of artists. Saying it is WP:UNDUE is ridiculous and a misapplication of that policy. I could understand moving the quotation from the lead section to another place in the article, but removing it altogether seems inappropriate. I'm going to request input by placing a neutral notice at WP:WikiProject Composers to see what other editors may think. Best.4meter4 (talk) 20:49, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

The current quote should be adjusted. The cited source says "One of the most honoured and most frequently performed American composers in Europe and the Americas during the mid-20th century" (which is included in citation) so we should adjust to specify "mid-20th century", which is an important clarification. Change the quote to "Among the most celebrated composers of the mid-20th century" and I see no issue.

Heyman gives the same quote on page vii of her 1992 study, so that might be preferable to source than Grove. – Aza24 (talk) 22:25, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

It's published in both places, so I don't think one is necessarily preferable over the other; particularly since Wentzel on page 12-13 highlights the later Grove publication as an entirely new biography by Heyman; although clearly it was heavily informed by her earlier work but with some updates and restructuring. I agree the text should be altered to mid-20th century if we are only using Heyman as a citation. I personally think the Henahan quote should be restored to the article; just maybe not in the lead. What are your thoughts on the other quote Aza24?4meter4 (talk) 01:01, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Restoring to the article's body text makes perfect sense to me. It would be good to have the sentiment expressed directly, and perhaps the lead is too general to warrant its inclusion there.

I only mentioned the 1992 study because of an earlier comment which from Hameltion, which emphasized the request of a secondary source (technically Grove is a tertiary source). Aza24 (talk) 01:56, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

• Henahan's quote is clearly WP:SECONDARY (unless he is very closely associated with Barber, which I don't belive is the case). Anyone who says otherwise has joined the multitudes who persistently misapply the policy. I suggest re-reading it carefully. Fwiw, I'd say Barber is better known internationally than Bernstein (apart from WSS) or Ives, as is Gershwin. Johnbod (talk) 17:02, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

I would agree. Wentzel on page 4 notes; that Barber is the third most recorded American composer with only Copland and Gershwin surpassing him. Of course that could have changed since 2012, but it's clear that he is widely recorded; more so then Bernstein, Ives, John Cage, etc. The ensembles recording him are also international. There's even a French Samuel Barber Society dedicated to promoting his music in France. 4meter4 (talk) 23:38, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: History of Sexuality

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 September 2023 and 22 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Llxmwu (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Llxmwu (talk) 07:31, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

"After graduating from Curtis in the spring of 1934, he pursued further studies in Vienna"

Barber was already in Vienna in November 1932.--Suessmayr (talk) 13:58, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

@ Suessmayr Barber travelled to Vienna many times; the first time being in the autumn of 1928. The quote in question is referring to specific period of formal study in Vienna, and is not meant to be inclusive of every visit he made to that city. The sources state he studied in Vienna in 1935-1936 on a Pulitzer Fellowship after graduating from Curtis in 1934. He was awarded the traveling fellowship on May 6, 1935; three days prior to winning the Prix d’Rome. He did visit Austria earlier in the Autumn of 1933 (not 1932; he was in Philadelphia taking courses at Curtis in November 1932) into the early winter of 1934 with Menotti where they stayed at the Motesiczky family home in Vienna while a Curtis student, but he certainly was not a Pulitzer fellow in Vienna until later. He continued to study periodically in Vienna through 1938 after his Pulitzer Fellowship ended; spending mainly the summers only in the city during those years.4meter4 (talk) 17:16, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

POB POD

One idea of having an infobox is to liberate the lead from clutter, such as the details (geographically and politically) of the places of birth and death (POB, POD). They are standard information for biographies, printed or on webs, regardless of their relevance for the life of the person. User:Nikkimaria, you removed them four times now, by several different users. Please let's not waste time with discussing such things: consider restoring. I already asked Barkeep49 about this. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:23, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't consider adding claims regardless of relevance to be a practice appropriate to standardize - if a particular claim is "clutter" in the lead, it doesn't warrant being given a place of even greater prominence. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:42, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

I have not had a chance to look into this and my Wikipedia time is fairly booked so please don't depend on me. Sorry. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:01, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: I assume that you noticed that you reverted three people. You also disagree with the Encyclopedia Britannica. I believe that we shouldn't have to send our readers to other sites to find information easily. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:14, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

I can't speak to editorial practices at Britannica, but comparing the two articles, I'd say that ours provides the key information much more easily. Looking back over older discussions, I find myself agreeing with what you yourself said: "What I see in the box is not what I am interested to see at-a-glance about a composer (any composer), facts about birth and death". But if you now believe those details merit greater prominence, we could look at incorporating them into the lead? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:50, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

I said that in 2012, in the first infobox discussion I encountered, and I said since often that I was converted in that discussion to supply different readers with different styles of information at the (low) cost of redundancy. Britannica: I didn't want to compare the two articles but the two infoboxes, and Britannica's has the information that you reverted four times. A reader who wants to know quickly where Barber died, and is used to find that information in an infobox (Bach, Mozart, Beethoven ...) would be frustrated for Barber. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:00, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

I would support restoring the place of birth and death to the info box. That content should not be in the lead section per standard practice in biographies across the encyclopedia. On a side note, this seems like a trivial thing to edit war over. Don’t we all have better things to do with our time?4meter4 (talk) 14:46, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Do you really believe that the Britannica example serves readers better? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:36, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Could you please answer 4meter4? - Britannica is an example of what I see in encyclopedias: begin with DOB, POB, DOD, POD, invariably, predictably, see MGG, Munzinger) When I'd see one of the four not filled I'd assume it is not known. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 00:01, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

I would certainly agree that it is trivia. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:47, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for restoring the two items in the infobox. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:33, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Gerda: you're welcome, and I apologize for becoming heated, that was inappropriate. I hope that going forward we can both agree to discuss disputes on talk earlier rather than edit-warring. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:30, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for a Christmas gift. - Discussion before even reverting comes to mind, or how about not even think of removing the two items from an infobox? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:08, 16 December 2024 (UTC)