Talk:Maurice Ravel

Happy 150th birthday!

Before creating a new article for the occasion (see my talk) I looked in the archives, and to my surprise found Talk:Maurice Ravel/Archive index, diligently sorted by numbers, but they all go to the same, Archive 1. What is the index for then? -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:47, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

Reverting sourced addition....

Why? Yes, it's an FA but as User:ViridianPenguin there's no rule that every change needs to be agreed upon. Pretty sure an article by the NYT is considered a reliable source, and the added text amounts to an extra sentence. Perhaps actually read what it was added before reverting wholesale and calling it a 'weird change' and then on top of that saying it's an edit war. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 05:14, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

It was edit warring, and per BRD there should have been a discussion here about a challenged edit (much as you have done in opening the thread). As I put in my edit summary, discussion is the better path than the edit warring it was. - SchroCat (talk) 05:24, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Extended content

As Tim has noted below, I reached out on his talk page to explain why I was undoing the revert. Since his edit summary was "reverting weird changes to agreed FA version," WP:BRD seemed inapplicable because I was not given a specific rationale to dispute. ViridianPenguin🐧 (💬) 13:35, 18 March 2025 (UTC) No, it was applicable. Just because you don't like the reason doesn't mean you can ignore it. - SchroCat (talk) 13:44, 18 March 2025 (UTC) Fair, but in this case, I genuinely thought Tim was assuming my humorous edit summary indicated spam, as opposed to actually disagreeing with the inclusion of this Sémiramis piece. For context, since being the nominator that got this article promoted to FA on 30APR2015, Tim has reverted others' edits on 65 occasions. I do not want to litigate whether every reversion was appropriate when some surely were, but I want to again dissuade reverting changes simply because they differ from the "agreed FA version" when, as Melodia notes above, FA status simply indicates that the article is high-quality, not that it has reached its optimal form. Tim should only be reverting edits on the basis of explained disagreements, not reverting most alterations with edit summaries that advise "discuss on article talk page if wishing to persist." ViridianPenguin🐧 (💬) 14:20, 18 March 2025 (UTC) It sounds staggeringly creepy that you've looked into the edit history on this. Maybe your time would have been better spent on reading WP:AGF and applying it to his actions, or maybe reading WP:FAOWN, or maybe just thanking him for both bringing this article up to such a high level and keeping it there? Those would have been better pathways than casting underhand slurs with that rather unpleasant little post. - SchroCat (talk) 14:29, 18 March 2025 (UTC) I can be simultaneously thankful to Tim for bringing this article to FA status while criticizing frequent reversions that fail to specify a rationale. WP:FAOWN states "explaining civilly why sources and policies support a particular version of a featured article does not necessarily constitute ownership," which is a far cry from Tim widely reverting the contributions of relatively new users and IP editors without clear explanation (WP:BITE #4). Again, WP:FAOWN says "it is considerate to discuss significant changes of text or images on the talk page first," but if Tim cannot specify what he disagrees with in others' bold changes, then he should not be reverting them. Referring to WP:AGF when I have used calm words, but Tim called my cited addition "weird changes" and you are labeling me as "staggeringly creepy" is rich. ViridianPenguin🐧 (💬) 14:45, 18 March 2025 (UTC) Stalking through someone's edits is always unpleasant, and "calm words" doe not hide passive aggression and other misdemeanours. I'm sorry you don't seem to understand what WP:BITE actually means, and considering your edit warring, stalking and casting unpleasant aspersions, I won't be the one to talk you through it. - SchroCat (talk) 14:56, 18 March 2025 (UTC) I cannot be both stalking and casting aspersions (either I am watching Tim's edits or making accusations without checking them), and I feel that I have done neither. I have offered Tim's edits to this article with a simple Control+F for "Undid revision" and "Restored revision" to support the claim that reversions are being used excessively. ViridianPenguin🐧 (💬) 15:04, 18 March 2025 (UTC) "I cannot be both stalking and casting aspersions". What nonsense: of course you can, and you have done both. Neither have you shown anything, except that your approach is rather adversarial. You have, again, made an uncivil aspersion against another editor. Maybe add WP:ASPERSIONS to the pages you should read before denigrating another editor. - SchroCat (talk) 15:10, 18 March 2025 (UTC) Again citing the pages you link, WP:ASPERSIONS says "casting aspersions is a situation where an editor accuses another editor or a group of editors of misbehavior without evidence." I have linked to Tim's collected edit summaries and specifically suggested that instead of writing "discuss on article talk page if wishing to persist" in edit summaries, he should explain why the changes are deserving of reversion. Ultimately, this chain is so far removed from a minor insertion on Ravel's final work at the Paris Conservatoire. If Tim perceives my comments as uncivil, I sincerely apologize. ViridianPenguin🐧 (💬) 15:33, 18 March 2025 (UTC) But you have provided no evidence. Linking to the page means diddly squat: that's not evidence, it's casting aspersions by saying 'look: he's done lots of reverts. He must be doing something wrong'. It's cheap and shoddy behaviour, but at least you've finally managed to apologise, even if don't seem to understand what you're apologising for. - SchroCat (talk) 15:39, 18 March 2025 (UTC) I am not saying that 65 reverts over a decade is indicative of wrongdoing. I am saying that reverts simply referring to an "agreed FA version" and/or directing the user to the talk page do not meet the standard of WP:FAOWN or WP:BITE in explaining reversions through edit summaries. My evidence for this claim is quoted phrases from Tim's edit summaries. ViridianPenguin🐧 (💬) 15:45, 18 March 2025 (UTC) You obviously have a problem in understanding what a =n FA actually is then. As an article has gone through two community review processes it gives it an extremely strong consensus. Reverting back to an agreed consensus is entirely within policy and practice. What you are doing is still just smearing another editor based on zero evidence. I think it may be time to step away and do something useful elsewhere. - SchroCat (talk) 15:51, 18 March 2025 (UTC) You cited WP:FAOWN, which says "explaining civilly why sources and policies support a particular version of a featured article does not necessarily constitute ownership," yet I am supposed to believe that it is within policy to revert without explanation? WP:Reverting's nutshell is "Editors should always explain their reverts," and whether this article is featured does not change that. The peer review and FAC occurred in the same month a decade ago. It is reasonable for others to be further refining the article over time, even if WP:FAOWN advises discussing significant changes at the talk page, and reversions are only warranted with an explanation. ViridianPenguin🐧 (💬) 16:02, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

I understand the instinct to revert, but I believe the addition largely makes sense. However, I'd adjust the edit quite a bit—keep the works paragraph where it was, remove the excessive rediscovery and premiere info as it is far outside of the chronology/scope of the biography (WP:NOTNEWS)—perhaps worth a note, but likely more fitting in a dedicated article. Maybe something like "During this period, he wrote Sémiramis: Prélude et Danse, an unfinished cantata about the namesake legendary Babylonian queen, long-thought lost until its rediscovery in 2000." Aza24 (talk) 05:39, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

This is copied from my talk page:

• Hi Tim! Just writing that I undid your revert of my edit to Maurice Ravel. Apologies if my initial edit summary came across like spam, but a new Ravel piece really was discovered. The discovery helps clarify how Ravel spent his final years at the Paris Conservatoire, and any rediscovery of a lost work is generally exciting! ViridianPenguin🐧 (💬) 01:27, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

• But, unless I'm overlooking something, you haven't mentioned the newly-found piece: you merely inserted some superfluous AmE-style commas and moved a paragraph out of sequence. I'm not sure this prentice work would merit mention in the article, unless it establishes its place in the repertoire, but you can make the suggestion on the article talk page, where it will be seen by any interested editor rather than here, where it will be seen by few. Tim riley talk 08:00, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

  When I come across the "Use British English" template, I still write with American English because I do not want to guess British grammar conventions, but I fully accept any changes to my proposed addition that would make it conform. Echoing my talk page message, any rediscovery of a lost work is generally interesting, and in this case, it especially fleshes out Ravel's final three years at the Paris Conservatoire. For someone who died at 62 and only wrote ~80 pieces, the additional info beyond labeling his status as a non-participating "auditeur" seems helpful. ViridianPenguin🐧 (💬) 14:03, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

I am American. If you can't be bothered to learn the conventions of British grammar, then for heaven's sake, don't try to copy edit an article that uses British English. "Introductory" commas are optional even in American English. See MOS:ENGVAR. As for the early Ravel work that you wish to add to the article, the question for composer bio articles should not be whether the subject composed a piece, but whether the piece is a WP:NOTEWORTHY part of the composer's output -- that is, is it significant compared with the rest of the composer's WP article. As Tim suggests below, the noteworthiness of the piece will rest on whether it becomes regularly recorded and becomes a regular part of the repertoire of notable orchestras, or whether they merely performed it once or twice as a novelty. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:37, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, my prior comment was too strongly worded. My parents were educated under British English, so I do make a conscious effort to use the British spellings that I know when I see the "Use British English" template. I have never heard of a British convention to omit introductory commas, but in a prior thread on this talk page, Tim claimed that Fowler's A Dictionary of Modern English Usage only advises their use when needed to avoid ambiguity. Note that the entire WP:MOS (MOS:ENGVAR included) and Comparison of American and British English article are silent on this topic. I only meant to say that I was unaware of such a British grammar rule and that I accept that aspect of Tim's reversion.

As for whether to include Sémiramis, what do you think about Aza24's shorter version above? Beyond my above argument that it contextualizes Ravel's final years at the Paris Conservatoire, the NYTimes' review of the New York Philharmonic performance framed the piece as the precursor to the orchestral techniques of his later Daphnis et Chloé. ViridianPenguin🐧 (💬) 14:51, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

For the third time, I think the piece is too obscure to merit inclusion in our Ravel life-and-works article. It seems that it is the discovery rather than the piece itself that has been thought notable. I repeat, concurring with Ssilvers and SchroCat: let us wait to see if the piece establishes itself in the international repertoire and, if so, add it, and if not, not. Tim riley talk 15:06, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Completely agree. It's why we have the page List of compositions by Maurice Ravel: because not every piece of music needs to be mentioned on Maurice Ravel, particularly an unfinished piece with limited notability. - SchroCat (talk) 16:16, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

It is, perhaps, ad rem to mention that the authors of the articles on Ravel published in Grove and Baker's Biographical Dictionary of Musicians since the unearthing of Sémiramis have found it unworthy of mention. Tim riley talk 08:19, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

The most recent edition of Baker's Biographical Dictionary of Musicians was its ninth, published in 2001. While the Sémiramis: Prélude et Danse manuscript was purchased by the Bibliothèque nationale de France in 2000, its significance was not detected until years afterward, hence why it was not mentioned by Baker. Viñes' diary suggests the unfinished piece was only shown once at the Paris Conservatoire, explaining why it was not mentioned from the book's first edition either. ViridianPenguin🐧 (💬) 13:47, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Also possibly indicative of the importance of Sémiramis – in the quarter-century since the discovery of Ravel's work BBC Radio 3 has broadcast Semiramis by Gluck (six times) and Honegger (once), but has not featured Ravel's Sémiramis. It is good and proper that the work is listed (misspelled – which I'll remedy) in List of compositions by Maurice Ravel, but I really don't think it cries out for mention in an 8,000-word Life and Works article. Happy to go with the consensus, naturally. Tim riley talk 08:33, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Pretty sure the article said it wasn't discovered in 2000 per se, just that it was sitting in the place they found it recently since then. As far as I know, up until now it was considered lost. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 12:18, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Melodia is correct, at least according to the NYTimes. BBC Radio 3 could not have broadcast this piece until now because it was considered lost until recently and once the manuscript's significance was realized, the New York Philharmonic and Orchestre de Paris agreed to split the rights to premiere it across 2025. ViridianPenguin🐧 (💬) 13:50, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

My rationale for the paragraph rearrangement is that it is chronologically confusing to end a paragraph with Ravel's 1900 expulsion and begin the next one with his May 1897 premiere of Shéhérazade. As Melodia and I have noted, the piece was acquired by the Bibliothèque nationale de France in 2000, but its significance was not detected until years afterward. None of the reporting on this rediscovery has listed the exact year that François Dru recognized it as a lost work, hence why I included the performance dates to at least indicate that years passed before its significance was recognized. I like your proposed suggestion! ViridianPenguin🐧 (💬) 14:33, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

I suggest we wait and see if the piece becomes notable by entering the international repertoire. If it does – lots of concert performances and recordings – fine, it will be worth including, but at the moment I think it is too obscure to merit inclusion in the Ravel life-and-works article. It seems that it is the discovery rather than the piece itself that has been thought notable. (I've corrected its spelling in the List of compositions by Maurice Ravel) Tim riley talk 18:55, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

R.S.V. 1964 ISBN

My understanding of ISBNs is that a book physically published before 1970 won’t have an ISBN. If it is published in 1964, it won’t have an ISBN. However, if an edition is reprinted in 1970 or later, than it will likely acquire an ISBN. The purpose of my edit to Ursula Vaughan Williams’ R.S.V. biography was to indicate it had been reprinted, and thus acquired an ISBN. I thought my edit was the standard way of conveying that fact, so I’m not sure why it was reverted. Turtlens (talk) 17:52, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

It was certainly first published in 1964, by Oxford University Press, as shown here And I agree an ISBN is useful. But is there any need to refer to the 1964 edition here? Wouldn't the most recent edition be more useful? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:01, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Ideally yes, but I ain't got it. I can only quote and cite what I can set hands on. Tim riley talk 19:10, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Seems like a perfectly valid reason. I guess page numbers may differ, but I suspect the information that refs [85] and [86] support will not. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:25, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

And your edition is the 1964 printing, and so has no ISBN, I gather. Turtlens (talk) 20:11, 28 April 2025 (UTC)