Talk:Ralph Vaughan Williams

Image

An editor keeps adding this image, which I do not think belongs in a Featured Article because the copyright details on the Commons page do not comply with WP requirements. Proof that it was published before 1926 would help a lot, but "Creative Commons" is clearly inapplicable, it seems to me. Advice from an editor more expert on image copyright and WP application thereof would be most welcome. Tim riley talk 08:55, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

The same goes for this image, which I have also removed, pending confirmation that it meets WP's requirements. Tim riley talk 12:54, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

I have now sought an expert opinion from an editor who frequently does the image reviews at FAC (and indeed did the image review for this article). Tim riley talk 13:06, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Nikkimaria, who reviewed the images at FAC has kindly given us a steer:

At the moment there isn't enough info in either case to be assured that the images are in the public domain - the uploader has claimed CC0 but without evidence of their right to do so, and in both cases the source states the images are reproduced by permission of the trust. Is there any reason that you're aware of to believe the uploader is associated with the trust? Failing that, do we have any further details on publication history of these images?

Unless these points can be satisfactorily addressed I fear these pictures are inadmissible. Tim riley talk 18:17, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Is anyone prepared to contact rvwtrust.org.uk? Is that something that would have to be done via Wikimedia Commons? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:21, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Further reading

If there are several books in addition to Saylor's, then why don't you add them to "Further readings" instead of getting rid of Saylor's? We editors should be assisting Wikipedia users, not worrying so much about enforcing our rules. But, as I said, I am through with this. It's not important enough to me. Maurice Magnus (talk) 17:19, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Note: we have tried to explain to this editor that Further reading sections are admirable for books that have "additional and more detailed coverage of the subject", and asked him/her to explain what new or specialist material the suggested title contains, but it seems s/he doesn't know and so far there is no reason to suppose that it needs mention any more than the other numerous books about RVW not cited in the article. We are not a library catalogue. I see the book is published by the OUP, which is always a good sign, but even so, there is no evidence that it would be helpful to the reader to single it out for a Further reading section here. Tim riley talk 19:03, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

According to the OUP site which quotes one review "Eric Saylor's new biography of Vaughan Williams...is the first to take full account of research published in the last twenty years, of the hitherto unfamiliar early works of the composer published for the first time in the last 25 years, and of the online corpus of some 5000 letters written by him only recently made accessible." https://global.oup.com/academic/product/vaughan-williams-9780190918569?cc=us&lang=en&# I would say one needs a review not on the publisher's (even if the OUP) web page. I don't currently have access to the Wall Street Journal or the Literary Review which both have reviews of the work. It does seem a substantial work. --Erp (talk) 01:26, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

If it contains anything new and important we should add that to the article where appropriate, and not merely relegate the book to "Further reading". I'll order the book at the British Library and see what, if anything, we ought to draw from it for our WP article. Tim riley talk 11:06, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

VW assignment in the Royal Army Medical Corps

RE: "Joining the Royal Army Medical Corps as a private, he drove ambulance wagons in France and later in Greece." Per Stephen Connock's book, The Edge of Beyond (Albion Music 2021), page 58, VW was a wagon orderly, not a driver. Drivers came from the Army Service Corp. I would change this, but I was asked to suggest changes here first. Rgrames (talk) 03:20, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

VW spelled the term "waggon orderly", but that was his job title, certainly. (See Ursula, p. 120) Tim riley talk 07:35, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. I made the change, with a parenthetical definition of wagon orderly, as suggested. I used Connock as the reference rather than UVW because Connock's book is much more thorough on the subject and explains, on the page cited, who actually drove the ambulances. Rgrames (talk) 04:40, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

OK. I've trimmed the wordiness and remedied your WP:CITEVAR variation. Tim riley talk 06:47, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Why did you change the citation? Connock's book is the now definitive text on VW's WWI experience and provides the additional information regarding who actually drove the ambulances. UVW's quote of his letter to Holst is ambiguous regarding what a "waggon orderly" is, and has been cited elsewhere as evidence that he was a driver. There is no such ambiguity in Connock's discussion. Have you read it? It quotes the Holst letter, too, but then resolves the issue. And my change was no more "wordy" than was needed to include the term "wagon orderly".

Oh, and you have a typo in your reference page number. Rgrames (talk) 05:05, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Your WP:CITEVAR violation made a dog's breakfast of the citations, putting the bibliographical details of the book in with the References, rather than, with all the other books, in the Sources section. If you wish to replace the citation with the newer book by all means do so, but don't indulge in CITEVAR: do the job properly, please. The job title is better avoided as there are two contradictory spellings of it and all that is needed here is to say what RVW was doing rather than what the position was called. Tim riley talk 07:59, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Stoki non-British?

I noticed just now that Leopold Stokowski is listed among the notable non-British conductors of RVW's music. But he was British. Although he made his career in the US, he was born in London, worked extensively with British orchestras in the postwar, made his very last recordings with them, and retained to the end of his days a pronounced English accent.

Oliver Daniel's biography states that Stokowski and RVW were "old friends" and had known each other since youth. He further notes that Stokowski's "natural Britishness rather than his flaunted Slavicness" was crucial for his success with RVW's music.

I'd make the necessary changes myself, but don't want to step on anbody's toes in this FA article. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 16:27, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

True, Stokowski was born British but he became an American citizen in 1915. Grove describes him as an "American conductor of British birth, and Polish and Irish parentage". He's righly classed as a non-British conductor of RVW's music, I think: he certainly made no recordings of VW's works while still a British citizen. Tim riley talk 16:40, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Before 1915, no conductor, whether British or otherwise, made any recordings of RVW's music. Even if Stoki had wanted to, the state of recording technology prior to World War I would not have permitted him to do so. (Another eight years passed before the first recording of any of RVW's orchestral music: Sir Dan Godfrey's of A London Symphony in 1923. Even that was considerably cut then, they were only excerpts.)

Returning to Daniel, he states that Stoki had a long personal friendship with RVW that had begun back at the Royal College of Music. Abram Chasins in his biography specifically refers to Stoki's indian summer in London as "the return of the native" (Chasins, p. 246). —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 19:04, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Undeniably a native, but not at any relevant time, British. Tim riley talk 19:12, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Stoki wasn't a foreign conductor in the sense that Karajan and Bernstein certainly were. Unlike them, Stoki was born, raised, and made his early career in the UK. He studied under Stanford and Davies and played their music, as well as those of other English composers, very early in his American career. In the 1920s, he began to conduct RVW's music and thereafter frequently programmed it; he conducted the Fantasia on a Theme by Thomas Tallis in his very last public concert in 1974.

I understand your point, although I still believe that the passage in question as it stands is a little misleading, particularly to readers unfamiliar with Stoki's background and his relationship with RVW. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 20:44, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough. We can agree to differ, and if you can muster a consensus I shall back down with as much grace as I can. Tim riley talk 20:45, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Oh, it's fine. No biggie. Was just a wrinkle that I personally felt ought to be ironed out. However, I will happily defer to fellow editors whose understanding of RVW exceeds mine. It's an exemplary article, which is why I didn't want to traipse about it in the first place. :) —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 20:53, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

That's a most gracious response – thank you. Tim riley talk 17:29, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

London residence 1899-1905

I have recently created the following article, Barton Street and Cowley Street, Westminster. I find, courtesy of the RVW society, that Vaughan Williams lived at No.10, Barton Street for a while and, among other things, composed A Cambridge Mass there. I wonder if the house/street might warrant a mention here? Quite understand if it is felt to be too insignificant - it wasn’t that long a tenure. KJP1 (talk) 12:11, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

p.s. - As I think there is editorial overlap, I shall be raising a similar query on the John Gielgud Talkpage in relation to No.16, Cowley Street.

I see no good reason why it should not be mentioned. But do we know how long "a while" was? Could certainly be added at A Cambridge Mass. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:25, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Yep, a six-year stint, 1899 to 1905, when he moved to the much more significant (for him, certainly, and arguably generally) Cheyne Walk (No.13), where he lived for a quarter century. Unfortunately, that house has been flattened! KJP1 (talk) 12:35, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

I'd be tempted to add it if was just six months. I think six years is certainly worth noting. Quite a few houses have been flattened in the past 120 years, especially in London... Martinevans123 (talk) 13:01, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

very true… KJP1 (talk) 13:12, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Only flattened once, though. I've been working on this London theatre that was wrecked by German bombs in both World Wars! Tim riley talk 13:48, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

When I prepared the article for FAC I wrote "On their return they settled in London, originally in Westminster and, from 1905, in Chelsea". I thought then and think now that in an encyclopaedia article of 8,000 or so words the districts rather than the postal addresses suffice. In short, I don't think it is key information in RVW's article that he lived at 10 Barton Street, though I can well see that you'd want to mention in the new Barton Street and Cowley Street article that he was one of the residents there. Should I look in at your new article, by the way? Happy to do so if you think I can be of use. Tim riley talk 13:43, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

That's a reasonable point. Do you think it belongs at A Cambridge Mass? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:04, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Tim - completely understand, and no big deal. I may follow up Martin's suggestion to mention it in the A Cambridge Mass article. As for Barton and Cowley Streets, I'd be delighted if you took a look. You can always improve on my prose, and your flâneurring around central London for years may well have meant you picked up something I missed, though I'm sure not something unpleasant! I've always loved Barton Street, more even than Queen Anne's Gate. Though the thought of now having the member for the 18th century, or, as I prefer, simply "the member", as a near neighbor lessens the charm somewhat. Happy Christmas if we don't speak before. KJP1 (talk) 14:07, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

p.p.s. Sometime, with Cass, we must do something on Buckingham Street, Strand, which I swear will have an even bigger crop of 'slebs! I see it's currently a re-direct to Greenwell Street? KJP1 (talk) 14:15, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

I think I had a flâneur once; but it was more just a talking point. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:33, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

On a related point, does anyone know why the Survey of London hasn't got round to covering the bulk of Westminster in over 100 years, [1]? I appreciate it's a huge task, but Parliament and Buckingham Palace do seem pretty mission-critical. KJP1 (talk) 14:21, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Pass! Tim riley talk 15:25, 22 December 2024 (UTC)