Jump to content

Talk:Steve Reich/Archive 1

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

Influence

I think the statement that Reich influenced King Crimson is a subjective statement. I've read where Robert Fripp claims that he had never even heard any of Reich's music prior to KC's eighties trilogy. He goes on to say that both Crimson's music and Reich's were influenced by the Javanese Gamelians(I know that's spelled wrong)207.157.121.50 22:17, 15 October 2005 (UTC)mightyafrowhitey

The Guardian

An article in today's Guardian (http://technology.guardian.co.uk/opinion/story/0,16541,1599325,00.html) has a comment on this entry from Mike Barne of serious new-music magazine The Wire (http://www.thewire.co.uk/about/about.php). Anyone willing to contact him to have him help out? I'm new to all this, and hardly qualified -- don't know how to edit very well myself! 70.80.27.104 01:37, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

We may formulate a response, please see: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(news)#Guardian_article. --bodnotbod 22:24, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Critical review in the Guardian

A critical review of this article was published in The Guardian (see this external link Can you trust Wikipedia Monday October 24, 2005). The comments can be use as feedback to help to improve the article.

Overall mark: 7/10 by Mike Barnes (interviews Steve Reich in the current edition of Wire.)

--Philip Baird Shearer 09:57, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Here's a start on the points mentioned. Hyacinth 09:17, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Was Steve Reich friends with Sol Lewitt and Richard Serra? Do their articles reference him back?
  • Discussion of major compositions beside Four Organs.

I attended a recent interview with Reich, in which he mentioned his early art friends & associates with Richard Serra being amoungst them. - John

Sparks

Hi all. I'm doing some work on the Sparks article and while coming up with something on their lyrical style, which on recent albums, Lil Beethoven and Hello Young Lovers, uses repeating lyrical motifs which struck me as being, more than likely, influenced by Reich but I haven't come across any references to this in my research. If anybody has anything on this possible link it would be a great help if you could drop a line on the talk page. Regards KaptKos 09:49, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Visit to Ghana

I seem to recall reading somewhere that he planned to spend a year in Ghana (having won a Fulbright to do so) but had to return after a few weeks because of contracting malaria. Any confirmation anywhere? Wspencer11 13:28, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Clarification?

This sentence in the article needs clarification: "Human voices are part of the musical pallette in Music for a Large Ensemble but the voices carry no meaning." Does this mean the voices sing using abstract vowel sounds or something like that? Or that they use nonsense words? Or that there are real words but they are used in an abstract way? --Wspencer11 (talk to me...) 13:33, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

They go "...boobooboo..." and "...weeweewee..." and sounds like that. Maybe a short audio clip is in order? —Keenan Pepper 16:13, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Infobox

Per Wikipedia:WikiProject_Composers#Lead_section and WP:WPO#Infoboxes, consensus exists not to include an infobox opera/composer pages such as this one, unless a contrary consensus exists with respect to the individual article. No such contrary consensus exists here. Fireplace 21:48, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary, there has been consensus here to have the infobox since it was first added, in December 2006, and you have not demonstrated any consensus here to remove it. Andy Mabbett 23:05, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
This is a low traffic page and the infobox issue with respect to composers was not a salient one in 2006 when the box was added -- that no one raised issue with it then does not constitute a consensus that overrides the broad consensus at both Wikipedia:WikiProject Composers and WP:WPO. You've extensively argued about this issue on both those projects as well as your ANI and the community has disagreed with you every time. Now you are edit warring over this on individual articles. Fireplace 02:05, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Fireplace entirely and ask User:Pigsonthewing to stop reverting this page. --Kleinzach 03:24, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
I'll add a voice to establish consensus here too (and at Phil Glass's page) that the infobox is best removed. --Myke Cuthbert 03:42, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
I concur. No consensus yet exists over infoboxes on composer pages. Work this out on the project page before edit-warring over this (and other composers). Eusebeus 13:14, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
This issue was discussed at great length on the Composers Project (and the Opera Project). The results of the discussion were summarized by Makemi on 28 April here. Statements were later put on both project main pages. --Kleinzach 13:34, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Another in favour of removal. --Folantin 14:30, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
And another in favour of removal. The info box adds nothing to the article. -- roundhouse 14:47, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Steve reich.jpg

Image:Steve reich.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 11:43, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Scott Johnson

Nowhere in Reich's "Writings on Music" (2000) or in any interview that I can find does Reich state that he heard Scott Johnson's "John Somebody" which constantly appears as an influence on Reich's "Different Trains." I think that mention of the piece "John Somebody" is superfluous to any discussion of Reich's oeuvre and that the quote "...following the example of Johnson..." is totally misleading and patently false. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.81.81.82 (talk) 03:14, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Composer project review

I've reviewed this article as part of the Composers project review of its B-class articles. This is a fine compositional biography; it is lacking in personal, and some professional details. See my detailed review on the comments page. Questions and comments may be left here or my talk page. Magic♪piano 15:23, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Impact of Stravinsky

Shouldn't there be a note somewhere about how he reacted when he first heard Stravinsky's Rite of Spring? I know I read somewhere that he has said it was crucial to his development as a musician. Wspencer11 13:38, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Since Stravinsky was the most important classical composer of the 20th century, it hardly seems necessary to point this out. It's like saying that a rock band was influenced by the Beatles, when they all were. Richard K. Carson (talk) 07:24, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Pronunciation

How do you pronounce "Reich" -- is it (1) [raItS], (2) [reIk] or (3) something else?
valter 07:36, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I've heard both reissh and reikh (as in loch). I think the latter is more correct. Dysprosia 08:33, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
He pronounces it: reissh. Jimaltieri 07:19, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I've pronounced it Rike for decades and just recently heard an NPR person pronounce it Rishe (the e is to make the i long). It looks like a German name to me. The English language has no sound equivalent to the German "ch".TheScotch 08:12, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

It is a German name, and in German would be pronounced indeed as "reikh (as in loch)". However, there is no logic in how names, especially of foreign origin, are pronounced, so whatever Mr. Reich uses himself should be taken as correct. 82.176.216.87 11:31, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Actually, in German it would be pronounced [RaIC], that is, pretty close to "reish." (The actual [C] sound is more or less like the consonant at the beginning of the word "human"). "Reish" is definitely the way he pronounces it (though I don't have a source on hand to support that).Masily box (talk) 20:12, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I was under the impression that the ending "ch" was pronounced like that of the word "rich." Not quite "rike" or "reissh." "Riche." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.104.2.130 (talk) 13:01, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Additional citations for verification

It really only needs one. Hyacinth (talk) 09:27, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

About The Gabrielle Zuckerman Interview

Hello. Where is the quote in the all interview? I can't found it. I think there's a mistake here. Maybe it's another interview.

Yes, I think you're right. It seems to be from an interview by Richard Kessler, Executive Director of the American Music Center (see American Music Center's July 1998 issue of NewMusicBox and this excerpted version by NYFA). I'll fix it. Thanks. Sean.hoyland - talk 15:44, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Composition 'Melodica'

The www sources i found about Melodica say that it was made 1966. So not at Mills College 1961-1963. At least one source: https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/de/wiki/Steve_ReichKabooty (talk) 13:06, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Steve Reich Spam?

Moving the following from my talk page. It was cross-posted to the talk pages of two other users who reverted the edits in question.

Dear Mr. Görlitz,

Why are you undoing my changes and labeling them as Spam on the Steve Reich Wikipedia page? We are in fact the official Steve Reich Ensemble based in London and I personally wrote, performed and recorded Piano Counterpoint on the EMI Classics CD label in Switzerland last month. What we "have to do with Steve Reich music" as you so nicely put it, is being his official legacy. The London Steve Reich Ensemble is exclusively endorsed by the composer personally in 2004. We have been performing his music worldwide. Also Piano Counterpoint is confirmed on official Steve Reich endorsed arrangement of the Six Pianos piece from 1973, same as all the other existing counterpoint works, such as Tokyo Vermont Counterpoint and New York Counterpoint. I consider it of important to have this at least mentioned on the Steve Reich Wikipedia page.

With all do respect, I have little clue of Wikipedia and its functionalities, and how to properly use them. I leave this up to the experts. There are plenty of references out there for anyone to add to my existing contribution.

The reason I have added my markings is because of other individuals supplying incorrect information otherwise. This simply states the truth and is in no way purposefully added as spam or advertisement. Yours sincerely, Vincent C. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vincentcorver (talk • contribs) 18:35, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

It seems like SPAM as the content you're adding is unrelated to the subject of the article and appears only to be designed to advertise your work. It may be appropriate to add a new section for works in honour of Reich, which is what yours is.
With all due respect, I placed something on your talk page to help you become familiar with Wikipedia and how it functions. Feel free look at that and explore the various areas.
In the meantime, if you want to discuss this further, I suggest you make your case at Talk:Steve Reich so that multiple editors may discuss this. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:45, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Dear Mr. Görlitz, I don't really feel like going into the subject with someone totally unfamiliar with the project. I stated quite clearly that Piano Counterpoint is an official Reich composition and not "in honor" of Mr. Reich, just like the other Steve Reich pieces mentioned on the page such as Tokyo Vermont Counterpoint and New York Counterpoint. How is it you believe to know anything about this subject baffles me. I don't have the urge to discuss the subject at your level. You have clearly no idea who you're speaking with. I believe this way of communication which you address is more a power-play than it has anything to do with you protecting the article from SPAM entries. My entry is purely informational. Nevertheless, I have better things to do than to discuss the subject at your level of thinking. May it be added at later time by someone else, I wish you good luck with your hunt removing it once again. The London Steve Reich Ensemble (talk) 19:35, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
You need to learn to write more clearly. Your addition read in part: "Celebrating the 75th birthday of the composer Steve Reich, the composer-endorsed London Steve Reich Ensemble, and its founder Vincent Corver have been exclusively commissioned to write and record the world premiere Piano Counterpoint." So it seems to me that the ensemble and Corver have been commissioned to write the piece. It also seems that Reich is being honoured (as a Canadian, I would never spell it honor) if not merely celebrated.
Second issue: "The collaboration between Corver and Reich" isn't explained at all, it's just dropped into the middle of the paragraph. Is it a commission from Reich, from the group to Reich, or something else?
Third issue: There's no article for Piano Counterpoint and you're introducing a redlink, but that's an easy fix.
Fourth issue: "August 12th 2011" is the wrong date format, but that's an easy fix too.
Fifth issue: "released the new EMI Classics album" obvious SPAM. You're selling a product.
Sixth issue: "The world premiere of ... is due to take place in London in 2012." More SPAM.
Seventh issue: You link to Piano Counterpoint as second time. That's repeat-linking.
Eight issue: It's completely unreferenced.
Ninth issue: you keep removing another piece without explaining why: *Livelihood (1964).
Tenth and final issue. You're in a conflict of interest Mr. Corver. While it's good to have first-hand knowledge, in this case, you're too close to the content you're adding.
Feel free to discuss these issues, or any others you think we might understand. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:14, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'm kindly inviting you to write the entry yourself, as you know enough on the subject by now. To make it clear: Steve Reich personally asked me to write the arrangement. The recording is piano solo and tape. I invite you to go have a listen online on any website or youtube. I have no clue what a red-link is or or how to insert references and have little time to get myself too acqainted. English isn't my first language, but thank you. Please bear in mind I have been merely overwriting and old entry containing fully incorrect information. I wouldn't have felt challenged to do this otherwise. My work is receiving enough attention on the web otherwise. (I don't need Wikipedia to advertise my work). Interestingly enough, nobody ever made effort to verify the old entry. Only when I made an edit to it suddenly many got strong urge to delete it. So interesting. Anyway. I shall keep my frustration further to myself. And feel free to contact me with your thoughts The London Steve Reich Ensemble (talk) 23:45, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi Vincent, If your work is (as you put it) "receiving enough attention on the web" I'm sure other Wikipedia users will add it to the article. You clearly have a conflict of interest here - so best leave this to others. Hope this helps. Snoop God (talk) 09:35, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

"Augmentation"?

For a start the linked page doesn't bear much relation to the word in the sense that it's used in the Steve Reich page.

Is this even the correct description? I don't recall much 'temporal lengthening of phrases and melodic fragments' in Reich pieces. That's more of a Philip Glass thing. Post-'phasing' Reich seems to be more about 'filling-in' the notes in a phrase gradually over time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andybak (talk • contribs) 13:27, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Say what?

1960's "but he found the rhythmic aspects of the twelve-tone series more interesting than the melodic aspects." Rows have no rhythmic aspects. Colbyhawkins (talk) 00:05, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

It often pays to check the source. It does not say this, though it is possible to understand how somebody with an IQ smaller than his shoe size might, at the end of a long and tiring day, manage to twist what Malcolm Ball said into that goofy claim. I have corrected it, thanks for pointing it out.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 01:16, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Oh Dem Watermelons

Is the music from Oh Dem Watermelons definitely phasing? I've never heard it, but I was under the impression that it wasn't. As far as I can make out, it's a close vocal canon which has many of the same effects as the phasing tape pieces (recognisable words being reduced to a series of abstract sounds), but it doesn't actually phase. Though I could be wrong. --Camembert

No, it isn't a phase work. I don't know about its production, but it sounds strongly like it still is a tape-cut-and-splice style work, though. You are quite right though with its canonic nature, however. Dysprosia 12:37, 13 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Thanks - I guess the article needs a little fiddling with. Has a recording of it been released, by the way? I need to track it down if so... --Camembert
I don't know. I can't remember where I heard it, it was a while ago... Sorry :/ Dysprosia 12:57, 13 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Ah well - thanks anyway. --Camembert
Glad to be of some help, at least :) Dysprosia 13:03, 13 Sep 2003 (UTC)
The music for this piece was not written "by Stephen Foster and Steve Reich," as credited in the movie. The first verse is "Massa's In the Cold Ground" by Stephen Foster, written and published in 1852 -- but it is then joined to the chorus of another song, "Oh Dat Watermelon" [singular] written and published in 1874 as part of Luke Schoolcraft's "Ethiopian Melodies," arranged by John Brabham. You can read the lyrics and follow the melody of the song from the original sheet music here:
http://library.brown.edu/cds/repository2/repoman.php?verb=render&id=1093464598896562&view=pageturner&pageno=1
Reich's conflation of these two songs, and his spuriously crediting them both to Foster should be mentioned on the page. The entire film is currently on Youtube for those who wish to follow the bouncing watermelon.
cat yronwode (not logged in) 75.101.104.17 (talk) 10:42, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
We probably can't use YouTube videos as sources for the article, of course And although the evidence is compelling, it's still WP:OR without a WP:RS that clearly says Reich was mistaken? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:51, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
I see your point. Common everyday knowledge of 19th century parlour music taken from sheet music sources seems like "original research" to you. Okay, but the FACT stated in the article is wrong. Stephen Foster did not write the song "Oh Dat Watermelon" or the lyrics quoted from it by Reich. It is immaterial whether we delve into Reich's state of mind; mistaken, deliberate, sly, or out-to-lunch, it matters not: the FACT remains that Wikipedia is giving the public false information because Reich's piece actually consists of a quote of the lyrics and melody from the first verse of "Massa's in De Cold Ground" by Stephen Foster (1852) and a quote of the lyrics and melody from the chorus of "Oh Dat Watermelon" attributed to Luke Schoolcraft and on the sheet music also credited to arranger John Brabham (1874). It would be original research to speculate that Reich changed the singular "Oh Dat Watermelon" to the plural "Oh Dem Watermelons" in emulation of another well-known minstrel song, "Oh Dem Golden Slippers," which has a similar melodic structure ... but i did not do that. I am not doing that. I just want the proper credit given to one of the original composers.
I did not invoke Youtube to propose that we host a link to it, i merely mentioned it to let a music-literate editor know where the film could be found in order to play the audio (earlier posts mention not being able to locate a copy, and for years it was very hard to find as you had to rent it from Canyon Films). I just thought one might like to listen to it while reading the sheet music so that my statements would not seem to be the ravings of a musical idiot. Read the sheet music; sing along; if you need a copy of the film because you do not have eidetic musical memory of the film's soundtrack, run it by and make the comparison.
The point is that the chorus or "release" portion of Reich's piece contains a very detailed melodic and lyrical quote, right down to the time-bound "I'm gonna join the Contraband children" which could NOT have been written in 1852 by Foster because the Contrabands did not exist then.
Here are more links to the source material --
The Luke Schoolcraft Wiki page is at Luke Schoolcraft and the cover of "Ethiopian Melodies" is shown there, displaying the song title "Watermelon" by name. It is a very degraded copy of the cover, however -- the one at Brown.edu, for which i provided a link above, is far, far clearer, as is this second copy, which is at the Library of Congress:
http://lcweb2.loc.gov/diglib/ihas/loc.award.rpbaasm.1275/default.html
I appreciate your concern that this might be "original research" but it is not that. Other than finding you an online location for the complete sheet music so you could confirm what i was saying and use it as a citeweb ref, no research was conducted at all. I just happen to know a lot of old songs, and so do a lot of other people. I have sung this song for 50 years, since i first heard it at a Mime Troupe / Robert Nelson performance. I immediately recognized that it was grafted on to the better-known Foster song, and i got a copy of the sheet music. The person who wrote this article did not know the piece of music -- but that's no big deal, because nobody knows everything, and Reich did omit a part of the correct attribution, for whatever reason. Yet the fact remains that Stephen Foster did not write that catchy song about watermelons and Luke Schoolcraft did. Here is a link about that fact, although it does not link the song to Rech:
http://parlorsongs.com/issues/2011-9/thismonth/feature.php
The midi is here:
http://parlorsongs.com/content/o/ohdatwatermelon.mid
The lyrics are here:
http://parlorsongs.com/content/o/ohdatwatermelon-lyr.php
I am, again, not conducting original research -- just trying to save you time.
(Now, what IS original research -- and NOT intended to be part of this article at all, in any way, shape, or form -- is that Gus Cannon of the Jug Stompers used the VERSE of this song to craft his version of "Raise a Ruckus Tonight" and recorded it as such in the 1920s. But you don't need to know that ... it is irrelevant. LOL! Okay, back to the issue at hand ...)
I have not had the pleasure of meeting you before in Wikipedia, and i know nothing of your background in music, so forgive me if i seem exasperated here. As far as i am concerned, the sheet music at Brown.edu IS the citeable source and we do not need a third party opining about it.
Do you know the editor / admin / bureaucrat Infrogmation? He is a music historian. I am sending him a note, hoping to get his opinion on this problem, and i will gladly abide by anything he thinks is right.
cat yronwode (not logged in) 75.101.104.17 (talk) 19:50, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Let's hope a "music-literate editor" comes along, then. Paging User:Infrogmation! Martinevans123 (talk) 20:04, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Many thanks. I must commend cat yronwode for the thoroughness of her research and the light she has thrown on the history and attribution here. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:45, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Froggy. That solves the problem neatly, but i would love to see a link to this Reich bio from both the Schoolcraft bio and the Foster bio, under the concept of cover versions or cultural legacy. That would require another source, though, because if i simply make the link, it would be considered original research. I will look around. I know i am not the only one who is into old songs!

And in ten minutes i found it! Here:

http://www.academia.edu/1855279/_Fun_Yes_but_Music_Steve_Reich_and_the_San_Francisco_Bay_Area_s_Cultural_Nexus_1962_65

""Fun, Yes, but Music?": Steve Reich and the San Francisco Bay Area’s Cultural Nexus, 1962–65" By Ross Cole, Journal of the Society for American Music / Volume 6 / Issue 03 / August 2012, pp 315 - 348

In the chapter that begins on page 336, "Civil Rights in a Cracker Barrel" -- and reading from pages 338-339:

"On this recording, a choir begins by humming Steven Foster’s “Massa’s in de Cold Ground” (1852) over the title sequence. The song appears again, at a faster tempo, before launching into the chorus of a much livelier song—Luke Schoolcraft’s “Oh! Dat Watermelon” (1874). A simple harmonic progression follows, supporting a section derived from the Schoolcraft song that leads to the appearance of a more mechanical passage [...] in which the word “watermelon” is repeated over a rigidly pulsed piano chord. At this stage, the music appears to halt its linear progression as if it were a tape loop. The voices then construct a five-voice canon before enacting the process in reverse; a final rendition of Schoolcraft’s chorus imparts a strong sense of release. Nelson recalls that he “edited a bit to [Reich’s] music,” implying that a recorded version of the soundtrack preceded and influenced the film’s final form."

Ross Cole provides his own slew of academic citations too.

cat yronwode (not logged in) 75.101.104.17 (talk) 21:28, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

A very useful source. Is it indiscrete to ask why you don't sign in and use your account signature? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:38, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks; i will add the proper links and citations between this article, and the Foster and Schoolcraft articles later this evening when i have more free time. As for why i am posting and writing and editing while not being logged in, well, it is a mixture of (A) just the normal complications of being a "notable Wikipedian" (folks started using my Wiki user talk page as a way to contact me, and i prefer that they don't), (B) taking a "mystery shopper" attitude to see how well or how poorly editors treat folks whom they consider to be newbies or riff-raff (i have been seen many examples of poor treatment and have often received it when posting as an IP number), (C) laziness in conjunction with editing / writing on the fly while busy with other tasks, and (D) a kind of back-assward protest against Wikipedia's policy of allowing IP anonymity, which i abhor; i will post as an IP number until i am finally shown that Wikipedia management realizes that the encyclopedia NEEDS full accountability and registration for writers -- see the Qworty debacle, for example. cat 75.101.104.17 (talk) 21:57, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure I have ever seen a more self-contradictory set of reasons! And I'm not sure your mystery shopper strategy works longer than two clicks. But if those are your reasons, so be it! It must be very awkward being a notable editor. You ought to be allowed to be able to use a secondary identity for editing, like Jimbo does. Also I'm not sure that such a considerate "ip protest" will achieve the desired result. But thank you so much for such a full explanation. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:06, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Steve Reich/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Comment(s)Press [show] to view →
==Composers Project Assessment of Steve Reich: 2008-11-25==

This is an assessment of article Steve Reich by a member of the Composers project, according to its assessment criteria. This review was done by Magicpiano.

If an article is well-cited, the reviewer is assuming that the article reflects reasonably current scholarship, and deficiencies in the historical record that are documented in a particular area will be appropriately scored. If insufficient inline citations are present, the reviewer will assume that deficiencies in that area may be cured, and that area may be scored down.

Adherence to overall Wikipedia standards (WP:MOS, WP:WIAGA, WP:WIAFA) are the reviewer's opinion, and are not a substitute for the Wikipedia's processes for awarding Good Article or Featured Article status.

===Origins/family background/studies=== Does the article reflect what is known about the composer's background and childhood? If s/he received musical training as a child, who from, is the experience and nature of the early teachers' influences described?

===Early career=== Does the article indicate when s/he started composing, discuss early style, success/failure? Are other pedagogic and personal influences from this time on his/her music discussed?

  • Decent compositional bio; no personal details.

===Mature career=== Does the article discuss his/her adult life and composition history? Are other pedagogic and personal influences from this time on his/her music discussed?

  • Decent compositional bio; no personal details.

===List(s) of works=== Are lists of the composer's works in WP, linked from this article? If there are special catalogs (e.g. Köchel for Mozart, Hoboken for Haydn), are they used? If the composer has written more than 20-30 works, any exhaustive listing should be placed in a separate article.

  • Good

===Critical appreciation=== Does the article discuss his/her style, reception by critics and the public (both during his/her life, and over time)?

  • Good

===Illustrations and sound clips=== Does the article contain images of its subject, birthplace, gravesite or other memorials, important residences, manuscript pages, museums, etc? Does it contain samples of the composer's work (as composer and/or performer, if appropriate)? (Note that since many 20th-century works are copyrighted, it may not be possible to acquire more than brief fair use samples of those works, but efforts should be made to do so.) If an article is of high enough quality, do its images and media comply with image use policy and non-free content policy? (Adherence to these is needed for Good Article or Featured Article consideration, and is apparently a common reason for nominations being quick-failed.)

  • No sound or images.

===References, sources and bibliography=== Does the article contain a suitable number of references? Does it contain sufficient inline citations? (For an article to pass Good Article nomination, every paragraph possibly excepting those in the lead, and every direct quotation, should have at least one footnote.) If appropriate, does it include Further Reading or Bibliography beyond the cited references?

  • Three references, two of which are Reich. Some footnotes; more needed.

===Structure and compliance with WP:MOS=== Does the article comply with Wikipedia style and layout guidelines, especially WP:MOS, WP:LEAD, WP:LAYOUT, and possibly WP:SIZE? (Article length is not generally significant, although Featured Articles Candidates may be questioned for excessive length.)

  • Lead could use expansion to 3 paragraphs. Further Reading is misplace (after References).

===Things that may be necessary to pass a Good Article review===

  • Article requires more inline citations (WP:CITE)
  • Article lead needs work (WP:LEAD)
  • Article footer material needs organization (WP:LAYOUT)
  • Article needs (more) images and/or other media (MOS:IMAGE)

===Summary=== This is a reasonably well-written compositional biography. It is lacking in personal details beyond his early years; we do not know where he lived, when he married, if he has children. It is also lacking in professional details: did he support himself solely with composing and his performing ensemble? What sort of paying positions did he have? One work is identified as commissioned; were others?

It is unclear how much of the article depends on Reich's writings (due to inadequate citation); beware WP:SELFPUB. It should be made clear (via inline cites) if these sources are being heavily used. (It is acceptable to use the subject's writings; however care must be taken, and the use should be minimized if possible.)

I recommend that, for composers whose works are still copyrighted, that their major publishers be identified.

The article contains no images; this defect is a bar to GA/FA consideration. It should, if possible, also have sound clips of the authors music and/or performance. The lead could be expanded; GA reviewers might think the current one short.

Article is B-class, but it needs pictures and the bio needs work. Magic♪piano 15:13, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Last edited at 15:13, 25 November 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 07:04, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Steve Reich. 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) 15:23, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on Steve Reich. 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) 04:06, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Pronunciation

The way Steve Reich pronounces his own name is given in this interview. This is consistent with what the Wikipedia page said before June 2017. It's /raɪʃ/.--27.33.218.250 (talk) 02:43, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Traveler's Prayer (2020)

Shouldn't mention of Reich's new work Traveler's Prayer (2020) be added to this article? Video 173.88.246.138 (talk) 02:07, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Infobox

I know the invisible comment that shows up when you edit says not to put an infobox based off of the WikiProject Composers thing, but nowhere on the page does it say not to put an infobox if the composer is alive or something. It says it should instead be left to the consensus of the talk page. A number of other contemporary composers who are still alive also have infoboxes, but for some reason just Reich doesn't seem to have one. I think we should add one for him, it looks kinda weird without it and would help consolidate important info. Pacamah (talk) 09:06, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Agree, infoboxes serve as an effective communication tool, especially for readers who are unfamiliar with Reich. CommonSentiments (talk) 16:06, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Reich's Racist Statements

I have included the report that Reich made racist, anti-Black remarks. I included this in the 1970s period of his career, but perhaps this could have its own section or be a part of some sort of "political views" section. I will leave this for others to decide; it really should be included in some form. LouMichel (talk) 22:25, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

I see my edit has been removed. Two sentences mentioning extreme racist statements Reich reportedly made (citing a very mainstream news source) is hardly undue weight in a fairly lengthy article like this. The writer who interviewed Reich is a leading music journalist, the quotes are included in a widely circulated and well reviewed book, and this is also cited in other journalistic and academic sources. I don't see how this is less credible that any other quotation, or less significant than the many other sentences about his life, influences, thoughts on his music, etc. LouMichel (talk) 22:42, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
Pinging Freshacconci since this has come up before. I'm being overly cautious with WP:BLP, as this comes from Sinker recounting a conversation with Wilmer recounting a conversation from fifty years ago. If there are other journalistic and academic sources discussing this other than the Guardian article I'd like to see them. Looking for more on my end all I found was found was an article in Rolling Stone Italia which wrote: Può darsi che la storia sia vera. Può darsi che lo sia solo in parte. Può darsi che sia stata riportata male. È probabile che le cose non siano così semplici: raramente lo sono. ("It may be that the story is true. It may be that it is only partially. It may have been misrepresented. Chances are things aren't that simple: they rarely are.") With something as contentious as these alleged statements I think it's good to make sure the sourcing is rock solid there for this alleged incident worth being important, and not undue to include. The description anti-Black also I think really needs especially strong citations for that adjective to be in Wikipedia's voice. Umimmak (talk) 05:07, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
A quick addendum: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies might be a venue worth perusing; I might be overly cautious with my understanding of WP:BLP but feel free to bring this up there to get outside editors' opinions as well. Umimmak (talk) 05:10, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for your thoughtful response. In addition to the Guardian article, I've found several sources that deal with this; I'll include a few here.
This is an example of an academic source that discusses Reich's comments and how it might affect our understanding of his work. There is also this podcast with Sumanth Gopinath, a leading Reich scholar, where he acknowledges that these are racist remarks but tries to contextualize them within Reich's wider career. This piece discusses how "In the case of Reich of course, Val Wilmer’s assertion of Reich’s parochial racist attitudes towards Afro-Americans leaves a nasty exploitative taste in the mouth that has excised ‘Come Out’ from my listening entirely." The book that contains Wilmer's interview, A Hidden Landscape Once a Week, is certainly widely sold (including through MIT's academic press), and there are various sources reviewing it as a whole. And as mentioned, Wilmer herself is a credible journalist.
I argue that these remarks Reich is reported to have made should be included. It can just be a couple of sentences acknowledging them, and I agree that phrases such as "anti-Black" may be unnecessary (readers can draw their own conclusions on that). But I think Reich's racist statements are at least as important as many of the other details that are already in this Wikipedia article. LouMichel (talk) 08:16, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
It's curious to me that seemingly no source has done the basic journalistic step of asking Reich himself for a statement... I'm sure at some point Gopinath will write something about this more in depth; I'm personally in general hesitant to cite podcast episodes, but noted that these alleged statements have been noticed by academics. It might still be that a Request for comment is needed, but if this is added back to the article just be especially cautious with what is in Wikipedia's voice and that it matches up with the references. Was he "accused"? And is the issue "holding racist views", "express[ing] anti-Black sentiments", or specifically (edit: allegedly) saying those two sentences (which, yes, the reader can draw their own conclusion from those two sentences, but the actual framing isn't in Wikipedia's voice). Hopefully this makes sense and like I said it's possible I'm being too cautious; hopefully other editors can weigh in as well. Umimmak (talk) 17:03, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Steve_Reich/Archive_1&oldid=1157641584"