Talk:Benjamin Britten

Removed: same

I pulled this sentence out:

The result of this hostility was that Britten's friends and supporters intensified their efforts to proclaim his genius, with the result that all his work was of the same high quality.

because I've no idea what it means, and therefore suspect no-one else will either. Does it mean

1. The friends/supporters rallied to Britten's cause, claiming that all his work was of high quality. [More likely]
2. The friends/supporters assisted Britten, so that all his work was of high quality. [Less likely and certainly less NPOV]

charlieF 12:17 Mar 13, 2003 (UTC)

Removed:Figured bass rules

I'm removing this sentence:

Only a few years before, a new work by Gustav Holst had been roundly condemned for not following the rules of 18th century figured bass.

Figured bass doesn't have "rules" as such - it's a system of notation rather than anything else. Perhaps it is meant to mean that it was condemned for not following the rules of harmony used in the 18th century, but if it does it should say that (and I doubt that would be true anyway - music in England at that time wasn't the most forward-looking in the world, but it wasn't that bad). The whole "commentary" section, indeed, needs work - "The present contributor considers..." is not a suitable way of writing for the Wikipedia (don't have time to work on this right now though). --Camembert

Benjamin Britten's continental influences will probably preclude him forever from the fame and respect he truly deserves in Britain. However fortunately his music does travel well and is appreciated in the rest of the world. The reactionary nature of the natives of Aldeborough STILL refuse to erect a statue of him because of his sexuality. Little do they realise that without Britten's putting Alborough on the map many of them would not have a thriving tourism and bed and breakfast income . Norwikian 09:07, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I'm questioning whether it's appropriate to have a "commentary" section such as this article has—it is proper to report critical commentary, but not for a wikipedia author to function as a critic himself. Someone familiar with this topic (not I) should review this section, though I think there are interesting observations/critiques in there. Postdlf 23:48, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Rewrite

OK I've done a fairly major rewrite, partly to meet the objections above and partly because I felt Britten deserves rather fuller treatment. The last paragraph may still need work, however (as may the whole thing) Wilus 17:03, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Gay

I'm missing something about Britten's homosexuality. Is that on purpose?

What are you missing about it? Hyacinth 11:56, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

There is a reference to Peter Pears being his "life-partner", but that's about it as far as I can see. I think there's a case for saying a bit more - not to be prurient, but to point out that Britten and Pears were openly gay at a time when it was illegal in Britain to have male-male-sex. They couldn't give a damn who knew about their love life. This was a very advanced attitude for its time. JackofOz 13:29, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I am not convinced that the latest edit serves any useful purpose. The consummation of their relationship is not relevant, I don't think. Thoughts, before I revert it? --Wspencer11 (talk to me...) 13:34, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree entirely with Wspencer11. It is one of the great musical romances, but this is as unencyclopedic as it would be to document where the Schumanns or the Messiaens consummated theirs. Worse still, the addition is unreferenced. --RobertG ♬ talk 14:00, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Robert said it well. I think it should come out. Antandrus (talk) 15:48, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. Although I admit that the term "life-partner" rubs me the wrong way. Mak (talk) 15:56, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I have rewritten the passage...speak up if it still needs work. --Wspencer11 (talk to me...) 16:10, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I think the issue is relevent if it can be shown to have had some influence on his work. Composers and their love lives are frequently referred to in various biographies. Take Wagner or Beethoven for example. Why should it be different for Britten? i think its important because it shows bravery and that he does not care what people think although it should only be a little bit. holly taylor Why is this aspect of his life not regarded as relevant? This is not about Britten's music. It's about Britten himself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shallaq (talk • contribs) 03:08, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

It may be argued that Britten's sexuality is of extra interest because the recognition he received was "not, however, without considerable irony; many of Britten's greatest works were inspired by his long-time personal and professional relationship with his lover, tenor Peter Pears, and created within the context of a society in which homosexual acts were criminal." [1]

Hyacinth (talk) 10:40, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I have removed my latest comment on Britten's paedophilia as it has been addressed elsewhere. I really don't understand the reason for the removal of the subject as it has long been written about in many reference works on the composer.71.247.199.98 (talk) 13:09, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Britten and Pears being 'openly gay', I think that's a slight exaggeration; we need to pay a little more attention to the way in which Britten and Pears actually behaved. For most of Britten's life, homosexual sex was indeed illegal and Britten didn't exactly give interviews in which he talked about him and Pears being an item. It's true that they didn't lie about their relationship, but neither did they talk openly about it in public, and there seems to have been a kind of conspiracy of silence on the part of their friends and the media not to out them to the press; I've read various articles and books about Britten published from the 40s to the 60s, and his personal life simply isn't mentioned, let alone that he was in a relationship with Pears. Britten's and Pears' close friends and acquaintances seem to have maintained a bit of a conspiracy of silence about it. (This was fairly typical for major cultural figures in mid 20th century Britain who were gay: for example, when John Gielgud was arrested for cottaging in a public toilet, it was kept off the front page because nobody wanted Gielgud to be ruined by a public scandal.) We should remember that Britten was regarded for much of his life as Britain's best living composer, and so it was in the interests of almost nobody to upset that by involving him in any kind of scandal. Britten also seems to have had some mixed feelings about his own sexuality, which come out in his music from time to time (e.g. Billy Budd, the Serenade for Tenor, Horn and Strings). As late as 1961, when Dudley Moore did a parody of Britten for Beyond the Fringe called Little Miss Britten, neither he nor the rest of the cast even knew that Britten was gay until after Moore had performed it, and then they were mortified because they realised that he'd be offended. Britten's gayness is a very complex and nuanced subject, and we shouldn't think that he was 'openly gay' in the way that, say, Harvey Fierstein is openly gay. I'm not saying that Britten and Pears weren't brave to live as they did, and anybody who knew them personally seems to have known perfectly well what the truth was, but they were not publicly gay in the way that people are these days; it was an open secret, and the establishment had invested too much in their success to not protect them. Having said that, when Britten died, the Queen sent Pears a telegram of condolence, and although she covered herself by addressing it to him on behalf of everyone who'd worked on Britten's music, Pears interpreted it, I think rightly, as an official acknowledgment that he was Britten's spouse. Lexo (talk) 23:39, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Anarchist?

I was surprised to see Britten categorised as an an anarchist. I would of thought he could only be described as such in a very metaphorical sense. Or am I missing something? Bluewave 11:46, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Hm, that seems weird to me as well. I read the Carpenter bio, and don't remember anything about anarchism. Since this comment was posted a long time ago, I'm going to remove the cat and see what happens. Makemi 03:10, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't remember anything about him being an anarchist -- pacifist, definitely yes, but not anarchist. Maybe the person who added the category can provide a reference? Antandrus (talk) 16:02, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

It should be removed anyway unless supported in the article text; Wikipedia:categories says that the reason for a cat should be obvious on going from the cat to the article. I suspect someone is over-reading Peter Grimes. Septentrionalis 20:41, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Pederast?

I query the addition of the "pederasts" category. Is it beyond dispute that "Britten's children" amounted to pederasty? --RobertG ♬ talk 11:51, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Terms like "pederast" and "pedophile" have strict scientific definitions that may include people like Britten. However, these words are laden with tabloid hysteria and even some dictionary definitions presume that pederasty is defined by particular sexual acts. Also the point of categories is surely to focus on the things that make a person notable: Britten is a world-famous composer, not a world-famous pederast! Bluewave 12:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Might it then be order for Britten to be removed from the category? Markjdb 02:21, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Done. Antandrus (talk) 02:42, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Surely if there is any evidence of this, it is noteworthy and worthy of such categorisation. No one has raised whether it is true or not. If untrue, then I agree it should not place the composer in a category such as Pederast or Pedophiles, but I would hate to see any cavilling at a fact, if it is a fact. Alpheus 11:08, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

The guidelines on categories say "Unless it is self-evident and uncontroversial that something belongs in a category, it should not be put into a category." At the moment it is certainly not self-evident and uncontroversial (based on the content of the article). Bluewave 14:46, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

There was once a reference in the article to Britten's attraction to young boys, but it was removed anonymously some time ago. It read:

The role of Miles in the last named [The Turn of the Screw] was created by the twelve-year-old David Hemmings with whom Britten, always drawn to young boys, became infatuated. The use of the boy's voice as a symbol at once of innocence and temptation is a recurring motif in Britten's music.

There is information on this topic in the Carpenter biography and in Britten's Children. Wilus 13:05, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

OK then, there's two arguments here. Firstly, some of the facts from those books would have to be included in the article. Secondly, there is a judgement as to whether the facts amount to "pederasty". I've got 2 dictionaries on my shelves, both of which define pederasty in terms of "sodomy" and "sexual acts" between men and boys. I am pretty sure that neither the Carpenter biography (which from recollection is very cautious about the subject of Britten's relationships with boys) nor the "impeccably unsensational" Bridcutt book would support that suggestion. Bluewave 13:36, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand why this information was removed except that someone didn't like it. That's too bad! I wouldn't support calling Britten a "pederast" since he never seemed actually to have acted on his impulses. But his interest in young boys is a known fact of his life and should be restored to this article. And protected, if necessary.Ed (talk) 14:26, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

St Cecilia's Day reference

I doubt that any encyclopaedic value is served by the reference to Britten's being born on the Feast of St Cecilia, patron saint of music, as there are thousands of Anglican and Roman Catholic saints, and many more famous people born on saints' days, but I imagine that any correlation is rarely if ever mentioned in any prestigious encyclopaedia. I won't remove, but unless there's strong support, after time I suggest that it should be. Alpheus 11:03, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I say keep the reference. It is relevant as he is composer and an interesting piece of trivia. I have read it in many other short biogs of Britten. --Richardbates2002 21:37, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

And he did write Hymn to Saint Cecilia, after all. One of the three reasons was the coincidence of his birthday on her feastday. -- JackofOz 23:55, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

He is referred to as the patron saint of music for this reason. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.102.232.49 (talk) 15:05, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Subjective description of style

"For many musicians, however, Britten's flawless technique, broad musical and human sympathies and ability to treat the most traditional of musical forms with freshness and originality places him near the head of composers of his generation."

Well, count me in as one of "those musicians", but this doesn't seem acceptable as a NPOV. Any other opinions? MarkBuckles (talk) 06:01, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I find the above an acceptable description of the current consensus on Britten the composer though I don't, at all, "love" his music which generally leaves me cold. No matter, just my opinion!Ed (talk) 14:48, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Infobox

Benjamin Britten
Birth name	Edward Benjamin Britten
Born	22 November 1913
Origin	Lowestoft, Suffolk, England
Died	4 December 1976 Aldeburgh, Suffolk, England
Occupations	Composer

In view of the consensus that has developed against using popular music infoboxes on articles about composers I have moved this one here, for comments etc. -Kleinzach 04:23, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Commentary

This article is an excellent example of why Wikipedia is not a reliable source for information. I do not regard myself as an expert on Britten, but I am a doctoral student in music composition presently, and I have closely studied Britten’s music and his life. The facts stated in this article seem to be accurate—i.e., dates of works, and the chronology of Britten’s life, but reading this section one gets the impression that his major musical achievements were the Young Person’s Guide to the Orchestra, some choral pieces and the Nocturnal. These are in fact wonderful works, but Britten’s most important achievements were in the realm of vocal music, particularly opera. Touching upon Rejoice in the Lamb, A Hymn to the Virgin and the Church Parables is a step in the right direction, but much more consideration has to be given to the operas Peter Grimes, The Turn of the Screw, Albert Herring and, most importantly, Death in Venice. These were the works in which Britten made some of his greatest innovations, including the use of serial methods of composition (in The Turn of the Screw) and gamelan music (in Death in Venice). The operas must also be viewed in the broad historical context that there really was no English opera to speak of since Henry Purcell’s Dido and Aeneas of 1689. Scholarship is much more than simply getting facts right—it’s bringing up the right facts for the right reasons, and understanding them in a broader context (in this case, Western music history). It takes real scholars and teachers to do this, not any random person who can contribute anything he or she wants to this website, Wikipedia’s statements about “verifiable” information and “consensus” notwithstanding. To really learn about Britten, try starting with the Oxford Companion to Music or Baker’s Dictionary of Music and Musicians. The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians is regarded among scholars as the most authoritative reference source for music—hard-core stuff which assumes you have pretty good musical background already, but still an excellent source of information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by OwenParamore (talk • contribs) 21:11, 24 May 2007

I shifted the above comment over from the article page where it had been reverted to here. - Fordan (talk) 21:16, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like we have a volunteer. Roll up your sleeves and get stuck in, Owen, old boy :)) --Stephen Burnett 21:19, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes I appreciate the point Owen is trying to make. O if only the vulgar masses, the great unwashed would keep their filthy paws of this thing and put away their stupid aspirations that they might be a part of some truly great democratic project then the world would be a better place.!!

The "Music" section is frankly pretty bad, and has been for a long while, with random people adding random paragraphs on compositions they happen to know. It needs rewriting, by Owen or someone similarly qualified, and if no-one will step forward I suggest it simply be deleted. Wilus 12:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Cogent, accurate, devastating and unfortunately still accurate ... (rolls sleeves up) ... Scarabocchio (talk) 08:05, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Not to mention the War Requiem, which was the work by Britten that was most highly regarded in his own lifetime. Lexo (talk) 23:41, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Works - explanation for deleting section

Recently an IP editor added a "Works" section - well, to be more accurate, the editor (presumably German-speaking) added a "Werke" section with various titles in German (e.g. "Serenade für Tenor, Horn und Streicher") see here. Some, but not all, of these German titles have been corrected or made to point to the correct article on the individual composition. However, there's already a better list at List of compositions by Benjamin Britten which is appropriately linked as a "See also" under "Music", we don't need a shorter list of key compositions as these are already mentioned at appropriate points in the text and I think that this section clutters up the article on Britten unnecessarily. So I'm boldly getting rid of it, but thought I would explain why here, in case anybody objects and wants to discuss. Bencherlite 09:37, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

No Photo?

It seems to me too odd that the article does not have any picture of him. I think there would a PD file in Britain/US even though he was dead in 1976. Could anyone know of where should hold such images (library archive, government, etc). --Caspian blue (talk) 05:05, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

British "official" photos tend to be under Crown Copyright. I suspect e wasn't well enough known when he was in the US at the start of WWII, although he was travelling with Auden, so it's possible there might be a PD photo of him from that era. You can see where general archive holdings are, here: Archival material relating to Benjamin Britten listed at the UK National Register of Archives

It's quite possible someone out there has a photo they'd be willing to release as PD, but finding them is the tricky thing. David Underdown (talk) 09:17, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the information. US congress seems to have several PD files, but it is not accessible to the website. Before finding PD images from Britain websites, I guess I have to read the copyright law first. :) --Caspian blue (talk) 15:36, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Another alternative to locating usable pictures is to ask someone like the Britten-Pears Foundation to release one (or more) decent photos under an appropriately permissive license. Magic♪piano 15:30, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Composer project review

I've reviewed this article as part of the Composers project review of its B-class articles. This is a decent composer bio; I have few relatively minor issues with it, including the need to substantiate some peacock language. My full review is on the comments page; questions and comments should be left here or on my talk page. Magic♪piano 15:30, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Britten's Children

Added link to Britten's Children article. Anybody interested in Britten might want to view it. Seems like a fork to avoid integration of POV there into biographical article here. MacGilvennehy (talk) 02:08, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Elephant in the Room

The Talk:Benjamin_Britten#Commentary by OwenParamore, above, is cogent, accurate and devastating -- this article continually sidelines and skates around Britten's operatic corpus. There are no operas in the list of Britten's recordings for instance(!). That might be an easy area to address, but the blindness to opera is woven into the DNA of this article now, and difficult to tease out. The peacock terms highlighted by MagicPiano in the review don't help as they build up the non-operatic works, squeezing the available space for the operatic ones, and there's a lack of focus in some of the sections which would benefit from a restructuring. One thing that might help get a starting point of attack is to separate the Reception section into Musical reception and Personal reputation or some such term. Comments? A second idea might be to add the list of operas into the body of this article to give them a visibility which is currently sadly lacking. Perhaps, if the article can be rebalanced, the list could be removed later. Comments?

It's two years to the centenary ... we have a little time. Scarabocchio (talk) 08:45, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

changes log

This is a very quiet article (very little has happened since the article review in 2009), so I'm doubtful that asking for discussion here is the best way to co-operatively develop the article. I'm happy enough adding detail, but feel less comfortable removing text (something which should be done, however, to clarify context and develop the various narratives). As I work through the article, making multiple changes, I'll log any material that I cut here for ease of access/ discussion/ re-instatement ... Scarabocchio (talk) 20:40, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

• Cut: "He was educated at Old Buckenham Hall School in Suffolk, an all-boys prep school, and Gresham's School, Holt." This concision was fine when the entire life to age 21 was in a single paragraph, but now that the text has expanded, it needs separating out and re-integrating (or discarding). The Gresham's School bit would need integrating into the part of his life (age 15-18) that is currently missing.
• Cut, from Life/RCM: ... Ireland "with some input from Ralph Vaughan Williams". The phrase was added by an anonymous (IP) editor in September 2005, without a source reference. The involvement of Arthur Benjamin is well-documented, that of RVW is not.
• Cut: "He studied both the piano and the viola; the piano was his only instrument as an adult, but the viola would play a significant role in many of his adult works. ^{[citation needed]}" We have now covered the facts of this earlier in the article, and are missing only the unsubstantiated claim of the importance of the viola in BB's later life.
• Cut, from end of initial section: "In this same period he wrote Friday Afternoons, a collection of 14 songs mostly for unison singing, for the pupils of Clive House School, Prestatyn where Britten's brother, Robert, was headmaster.(ref)Oliver, p.217(/ref)". The "same period" refers to the period between "A Hymn to the Virgin (1930) and a set of choral variations A Boy was Born, written in 1934". I suggest that this is insufficiently notable, and not part of any narrative.

I think it's a pity to cut mention of the viola (perhaps the claim is over-stated, but the instrument does after all play a major role in that key passacaglia in Peter Grimes). However I would like to challenge the assumption that Friday Afternoons is "insufficiently notable". The set represents an early manifestation of Britten's gift for finding/creating melodies which lodge in the mind, in a manner which he fully exploited once he'd decided to return to England from the States; and as a set Friday Afternoons presents one of the earliest examples of his outstanding gift of writing for young performers music within their ability which yet draws out their musicality and enthusiasm for music-making in a way rarely equalled by any other composer - again something which presages later masterpieces, such as Noyes Fludde and relevant parts of Turn of the Screw and Midsummer Night's Dream. I am reinstating Friday Afternoons on that basis. Alfietucker (talk) 21:50, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Great! I welcome the response and the enthusiasm -- I was beginning to think that I was shouting into a void. It will be even better when you get your reference books back and can flesh this out in the article itself! :-) Scarabocchio (talk) 22:19, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Benjamin Britten 1945.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:Benjamin Britten 1945.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do?
	Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is no rush to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 01:25, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Benjaminbrittenjpg.jpg Nominated for Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:Benjaminbrittenjpg.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests August 2011 What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 11:53, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Sexual preferences

I too find it curious that there is no simple and clear statement that Britten was gay and that he had a long-term same-sex relationship. One would expect this to appear in a section on "Personal life" which is notable by its absence. A source such as this is interesting as it mentions both Britten's "infatuations with adolescent boys" and the reputed fact (also found in many other sources) that he was "raped by a master at his school". Thanks to Alden, this aspect of Britten's personality has informed a whole re-interpretation of one of his major works. Or is it just directorial sensationalism? 109.153.201.140 (talk) 21:59, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Table of contents

Moving the TOC to the left means that there is a lot of white space to its right, and I imagine that the TOC was located on the right to avoid that. --GuillaumeTell 11:22, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and that's the intention—to distinguish the lede from the rest of the article. If the convention ever changes, I'll be in there pitching to right-align TOCs, but until that day, it's a convention universally adopted in WP articles. Cheers. GFHandel ♬  21:10, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Quite so. There must be hundreds of thousands of articles on Wikipedia with white space to the right of the TOC. What's so special about this one? Moving the TOC to the right simply makes it intrude on the section following the lede which, in my opinion, is just as bad as having that blank white space. Avoiding this intrusion on the following section is probably the reason the left-TOC template is designed as it is. On the other hand, I like what GuillaumeTell has done with the stained-glass window image, to try to fill some of the white space. A portrait of the composer would be better, but I expect finding a copyright-free image must be a problem or this would have been done long ago.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:23, 26 November 2011 (UTC)