Talk:Maurice Ravel

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Biography / Musicians (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians.
 

This article has comments here.

WikiProject France (Rated B-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

This article has comments here.

WikiProject Basque
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Basque, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Basque people, Basque Country, Basque language, history and culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 
WikiProject Composers (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon Maurice Ravel is within the scope of the Composers WikiProject, a group of editors writing and developing biographical articles about composers of all eras and styles. The project discussion page is the place to talk about technical and editorial issues and exchange ideas. New members are welcome!
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 

This article has comments here.

WikiProject Opera (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Opera, a group writing and editing Wikipedia articles on operas, opera terminology, opera composers and librettists, singers, designers, directors and managers, companies and houses, publications and recordings. The project discussion page is a place to talk about issues and exchange ideas. New members are welcome!
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 

This article has comments here.

WikiProject Dance / Ballet (Rated B-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Dance, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Dance and Dance-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Ballet (marked as Low-importance).
 

This article has comments here.

This article has an assessment summary page.

Royalties?[edit]

Can someone explain how he is still earning royalties if he died almost 70 years ago?

Well, he personally isn't, obviously, but his estate is. Copyright continues in force until its expiration regardless of whether or not the original copyright holder is alive. If my memory serves me right, in the US a copyright holder used to get 28 years plus one extension for a total of 56 years. Then it went to 75 years after the first performance/appearance, and just recently Congress coddled Disney some more by making it 95 years. Then there are lots of international ramifications and agreements that countries follow or ignore, depending. I know that Copland etc. never got royalties from performances in the Soviet Union because the Russians didn't sign the international copyright agreements until I think 1976 (and even then it was not retroactive there).
Mind you, I am far from an expert in copyright but this is what I have always understood. --Wspencer11 (talk to me...) 12:21, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Impressionist?[edit]

Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't Ravel always reject the label of "Impressionist"? I believe he was more closely associated with Expressionism. --bleh fu 16:13, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)

Most artists reject the labels assigned to them, for instance Philip Glass. I suggest you find a citation or quote which indicates that Ravel did not think of himself as Impressionist or rejected the label. However, that he is commonly called impressionist requires description. Hyacinth 17:05, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
A good suggestion -- I will look for a quote or something. From what I recall, though, Ravel distanced himself artistically from Debussy for this reason, to avoid that 500 lb. gorilla of a blanket. --bleh fu talk fu 18:30, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)
The term "Impressionism" really stems from the visual arts (where it's also not that useful), and I believe this is a large part of why Ravel & Debussy both disliked it. And the fact is that Ravel's music is not really all that similar to Debussy's. "Expressionism" in music is largely a German phenomenon and I have never heard it applied to Ravel or any other French composer of that period. Wspencer11 13:11, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, after that I'm surprised it's survived almost another five years. I think it is misleading and pointless and so I've removed it. Rothorpe (talk) 21:06, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Ravel's piano lessons[edit]

So, started paino lessons at age 7 did he?: Anyone who has heard the piano rolls he recorded in 1920 will see this as a powerful reason for not inflicting such tortures on children! the preceding unsigned comment is by PiCo (talk • contribs) 7 October 2005

I haven't heard them ... What do you mean? — Pladask 12:16, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

I am doing a report on Maurice Ravel and two others Igor Stravinsky and Bob Dylan and I was wondering if any of you have any interesting facts about any of them, please it would be greatly appreciated! signed,Allison age-13 the preceding unsigned comment is by 66.52.23.29 (talk • contribs) 10 December 2005

It's very enterprising of you to ask us to do your homework for you, Allison. Anyone with interesting facts about these composers would, after checking them I hope, add them to the articles. Have you read the articles? --RobertGtalk 09:53, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

He disliked the overtly religious themes of other composers, such as Richard Wagner, and instead preferred to look to classical mythology for inspiration.

I would've thought that Wagner inspired more of a mythological standpoint than religious, seeing as he wrote his operas about the Germanic myths. Maybe I'm wrong.

Yes I have read the articles, and thank so much for your help. i got a 95% on my report. allison

I understood that Ravel was actually not a very skilled pianist; is that what you mean about these rolls, that's he's not very good? Wspencer11 13:11, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Ravel the pianist[edit]

I came here to ask about Ravel the pianist, and noticed this thread. We say in the article that he received "a moving standing ovation which he remarked was unlike any of his underwhelming premieres in Paris." Was this ovation for his pianism per se, or as a tribute to the fact that these pieces were being played by their composer himself (I'm assuming he played his own pieces on tour)? Did he in fact play other composers' works publicly, and if so, whose? I find it hard to imagine that the composer of Ondine wasn't a very, very substantial pianist himself. Is there any decent information about the pianist Ravel, as distinct from the composer Ravel? -- JackofOz 05:24, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Here's something interesting - [1]. -- JackofOz 00:35, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
An interesting site indeed, but please do note that not everyone would agree with that author's assertions regarding the reliability of reproducing rolls or with his denegration of phonograph records of the era. The subject of rolls vs. records tends to prompt heated debate, and it appears this author's position is pretty much at one polar extreme of opinion. Drhoehl (talk) 20:25, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: "Maurice Ravel played the first two movements of his Sonatine, as recorded on a reproducing piano roll in Paris in 1913. No one knows for sure why he didn’t record the third movement. He did perform the entire work on his 1928 U.S. tour.":

The last sentence above would seem to contradict the article, at least partially. TheScotch (talk) 12:02, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Is it commercial or isn't it[edit]

Sorry I'm new on Wikipedia. I hope I'm on the right place here. Two days ago I added a Weblink to the Maurice Ravel article. The link opens the Website from the little German music label Troubadisc. Sure, a label produces music and as an service you can find an CD's catalogue but the Website offers more. The founder of the label are classical musicans. They attend to a very specialized sometimes unknown part of classical music. You can find biographies of composers and artists, articles, discussions and news. The user Makemi deleted the link from this site. He meant, that I only added it as an advertising link. I doesn't think so, whats your opinion?--Ron.kappler 10:04, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Makemi's decision. Though it's nice to see a good record label run by people who care about music, it doesn't provide very much additional information beyond the scope of this article for people who want to know more about Ravel, which is what external links on Wikipedia are for. Please see the guidelines at Wikipedia:External links for more information. Thanks, Mindspillage (spill yours?) 18:20, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Homosexual?[edit]

Whoever posted that Ravel was homosexual, could they please prove this? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gymnopedist (talkcontribs) .

Thanks for pointing this out: I had missed this edit. I went ahead and reverted to the previous version. Regarding his sexuality, there has been nothing besides speculation; Ravel was intensely private. According to the New Grove, the closest emotional relationship he ever experienced was with his mother. If someone has some citeable evidence of his sexuality, please present it. Thanks, Antandrus (talk) 23:06, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • There is no documented evidence of Ravel's sexuality either way. Manuel Rosenthal has suggested that Ravel frequented prostitutes, but there is no evidence for this. The subject remains a mystery and until it has been proven, the question should remain open, in the interests of scholarhship
    • That said, people are always putting these things forward. Ravel, Debussy, Tailleferre and others regularly come up on lists of GLBT people. While there's nothing wrong with people being of this orientation, it should be noted that some people (even the French) are simply not homosexual, regardless of how many homosexual friends they may have. If you can't cite a source, the best thing to do is to not mention the subject and leave the question open.

Musikfabrik 20:44, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

It has been noted that Ravel frequently wore makeup and dressed in silk robes. While this may not be indicative of homosexuality, he was certaintly effeminate. It is also quite unusual that of a man of his era did not marry. Was he a "Confirmed bachelor"?

See Long-running relationships below. JackofOz 02:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


Well, as long as we're gossiping, the lengthy biographical introduction to a recent publication of Ravel's letters (I don't recall the title--I'll try to remember to look it up) maintains that Ravel frequented (female) prostitutes--very discreetly. He couldn't abide the idea of living with anyone else. If you knocked on his door while he was at work on a composition, he would ignore you completely. TheScotch (talk) 11:19, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Injured in World War I?[edit]

In MASH, Major Winchester mentions Ravel and talks of him losing his hand (or its use) in World War I, forcing him to commission pieces of only the right hand.

Was that true? The article doesn't mention it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 205.237.164.110 (talkcontribs) .

No, absolutely not. (I hope they didn't say that!) That was his friend, pianist Paul Wittgenstein who lost his right arm. Ravel wrote the Piano Concerto for the Left Hand for him. Antandrus (talk) 23:46, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

MAJ Winchester's patient is another amputee, and both Wittgenstein and Ravel's concerto are mentioned. Drieux 00:38, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Modes[edit]

The article mentions that when Ravel uses major and minor scales, he treats them modally. This itself isn't objectionable, but then claims that the major scale is the same as the Myxolidian mode. AFAIK, this is incorrect. The Myxolidian mode is what you get if you start on the fifth degree of the major scale, just like the minor/aeolian scale is the sixth degree. The mode which is the same as the major scale is the Ionian mode. 155.212.199.126 13:39, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely true. Here's what the article currently says:
When he uses major or minor scales, he treats them modally (the [Mixolydian is correct; please do not change it; *read* the next sentence for explanation] Mixolydian and Aeolian modes, respectively). As a result, there are virtually no leading tones in his output.
Any major scale has a leading tone, so if Ravel avoids using leading tones then he cannot be using a major scale. The author's note (included above) is inaccurate. I will leave the passage alone for now, awaiting futher comments, but the passage as it stands must be rewritten, and I will do so once anyone else has weighed in. --Wspencer11 (talk to me...) 14:07, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
The passage is worded badly. Ravel's music lacks leading tones, because he indeed preferred the Mixolydian and Aeolian modes; maybe the original author believed that he was deliberately substituting those two modes for the major and minor scales (that may indeed be correct). A major scale without a leading tone is Mixolydian. Now there may be better ways to word this; I've reverted several times attempts to substitute "Ionian", which is wrong, since it has a leading tone. While I didn't write that passage, I did include the inline note. Probably the passage could be re-worded in some way like this: Ravel rarely used major or minor scales, instead preferring to use the Mixolydian and Aeolian modes, respectively; as a result there are few leading tones in Ravel's output, since his favored Mixolydian mode lacks one. Or something. I can look at this again tonight. Antandrus (talk) 15:30, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Long-running relationships[edit]

Re this: Ravel never married, but he did have several long-running relationships. Many of his friends have suggested that Ravel was known to frequent the bordellos of Paris, but the issue of his sexuality remains largely a mystery.

  • What is the source for the "several long-running relationships". Is it known whether they were with women or men? What were their names? If this cannot be substantiated, I'd prefer the highlighted text above be removed from the article. JackofOz 04:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
No response, so I've removed this uncited claim. JackofOz 07:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Suffered from Aphasia?[edit]

Under the Aphasia page, Ravel is listed as a famous individual who suffered from aphasia, a neurological condition which makes it difficult to speak. Yet there is no mention of this on this page, and in the second paragraph under the "Musical Influence" heading, it quotes a witty response he gave to Gershwin--something that should have been difficult for him to do if he suffered from aphasia. Can someone reconcile these articles? Michaeljancsy 04:31, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

(i) Ravel's trip to the US was years before the onset of his aphasia; (ii) the Gershwin story is probably untrue anyway: Gershwin (or his equally insecure admirers) appear to have told a worryingly similar one about Schoenberg --

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4158/is_20010606/ai_n14386429

R. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pfistermeister (talkcontribs) 06:28, 2 March 2007 (UTC).

Public Domain[edit]

"Ravel's works will enter public domain on January 1st, 2008."

In which country/countries? --Sketchee 17:44, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I was wondering this myself. I am pretty sure that none of his works will enter the public domain on that date. ~MDD4696 01:16, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
I corrected the date (2015) according to [2]. ~MDD4696 01:20, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
According to copyright law in most countries, all of Ravel's works became public domain on Jan. 01 2008, 70 years after his death (see the article on Public Domain).218.167.16.157 (talk) 15:07, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

What I read in the book, Neurology Secrets was that after the car accident he began to deteriorate cognitively and his friends began to believe he was bleeding on the brain. They managed to find a surgeon who opened up his skull only to find his brain was tiny....he basically had dementia and then died from the shock of the procedure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.97.157.49 (talk) 21:56, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Infobox[edit]

Could someone who is familiar to the topic please add an infobox at the top of the page, possibly Template:Infobox musical artist. Thanks! Reywas92Talk 21:42, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

No. There is no consensus on ths issue whatsoever, and the discussions at [[3]] have been lengthy and heated. This should not go in until there is solid agreement to do so. --Wspencer11 (talk to me...) 01:20, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Musical Influence[edit]

We have two musical influence sections in two parts of the article! And they have conflict, one claims Ravel was influenced by Debussy and the other argues against it. These should be merged. --Sketchee (talk) 19:17, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I performed the desired merge and added some material, lifted partially from the featured French article. I think the section suffers a little from repetition of points made in the preceding section (Musical style), and from lack of flow. I should note that the Jankélévitch translation of the quote is my own. There might be a more "official" (and natural-sounding) one elsewhere. Best, Eliezg (talk) 04:22, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Gershwin anecdote[edit]

Could somebody resolve this possibly apocryphal response to Gershwin? Or double-check the Schoenberg attribution (I mean - Gershwin learning from Schoenberg? really?) Or eliminate the whole thing entirely? All it does is make Wikipedia seem even less reliable than it probably is. Incidentally, the French article has Ravel saying the following to Gershwin: « Vous perdriez la grande spontanéité de votre mélodie pour écrire du mauvais Ravel. », i.e. "You would lose the great spontaneity of your melody to compose second-rate Ravel" and attributes the Jankelevitch biography. Best, Eliezg (talk) 19:01, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


All it does is make Wikipedia seem even less reliable than it probably is...
On the contrary: Wikipedia is the only place where the existence of two mutually undermining versions of the tale is noted: elsewhere, Gershwin fans and Schoenberg fans all repeat their own favourite version to their hearts' content... Pfistermeister (talk) 18:52, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


Well, I decided I may as well check another recent book The Great Composers that I received for Christmas and interestingly enough, under its section on Gershwin it does actually attribute this particular quote to Schoenberg. But it also attributes the "How about you give me some lessons?" quote to Stravinsky, despite the Wikipedia page citing Stravinsky himself denying this. Gershwin did definitely request lessons (but was denied) from Ravel, Stravinsky and Schoenberg, so I can see that this issue is more complicated than I originally thought. I apologise for my hasty edit yesterday in favour of Ravel, as that was the only way I had ever heard and read the story previously. Since we appear to have sources that support both sides of these attributions, I am in favour of leaving the ambiguity, as long as it is written properly. I have reverted the previous Gershwin article for now, although someone may wish to word it more professionally than "...credited with essentially the same quote in the Wikipedia article for Maurice Ravel." as it currently stands. Symphonien (talk) 09:27, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Nature of Ravel's association with Ralph Vaughan Williams[edit]

It seems to be the received wisdom that V-W was one of Ravel's few students. I've always believed this was the case. However, I've just been browsing through Webster's New World Dictionary of Music (1998) - this is a cut-down version of Nicolas Slonimsky's Baker's Biographical Dictionary of Musicians (8th edition), with updates and amendements by Richard Kassel. I've owned a copy for years, but have never read it from cover to cover and am always finding new revelations.

Ravel's article says: "... accepted virtually no pupils, but gave friendly advice to Vaughan Williams, Gershwin and others".

V-W's article says: "Dissatisfied with his academic studies, he decided to seek advice from Ravel in Paris to acquire the technique of modern coloristic orchestration".

I'm usually prepared to believe Slonimsky where he diverges from other writers on music. He's saying V-W sought and received "advice" from Ravel, and specifically denies that Ravel had any [formal] pupils (although that's qualified with "virtually", which leaves the door open for a very small number, maybe only one).

On the other hand, Grove V says: "The list of Ravel's pupils, and of the composers who received advice from him, is given by Roland-Manuel in his invaluable book of 1928 as follows: Maurice Delage, Roland-Manuel, Manuel Rosenthal, Vaughan Williams, Maurice Fouret, Nikolay Obukov [sic], Louis Durey, Germaine Tailleferre, Lennox Berkeley". Unfortunately, it doesn't specify which were his [formal] pupils and which merely "received advice" from him.

Maurice Fouret seems to have been forgotten by history – all I can find out about him is that he wrote an opera "La Belle De Haguenau". We definitely need an article on Nikolai Obukhov (1892-1954).

Being a cut-down version (613 pages), Webster's doesn't have articles on every person that appears in Baker's, and Delage, Rosenthal and Vlado Perlemuter - the people we say were Ravel's students - are excluded, so I can't cross-check. I don't have access to Baker's 8th, unfortunately.

Maybe this is merely focussing on the semantic difference between "studied with" and "was a student of". I suppose one could do the former without necessarily formally doing the latter. If one sits down with another person and receives "advice" from them, does this constitute "studying with" them? I can't imagine much advice about "the technique of modern coloristic orchestration" could be conveyed during a half-hour chat over a cup of coffee - a more substantial and intensive association would have been required between the two men, and that would probably be regarded as V-W having "studied with" Ravel. But if we say that X "studied with" Y, this could suggest a period of months or years of formal study, when in fact it may have been as short as a handful of meetings, and informal meetings at that. This seems to suggest there's scope for misleading our readers if we're not careful with our wording.

I'd welcome any comments people might have on these issues. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:19, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I would not use Grove V for much of anything anymore. It's something like 50 years out of date, and the standard of scholarship in the Sadie versions is far higher. I also have a feeling (completely unsubstantiated) that many of the Ravel biographies are rather unreliable. But I am no Ravelm expert by any means. --Wspencer11 (talk to me...) 22:26, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Considering that lesser pianists have been known to claim to have "studied with" this or that "immortal" based on a master class or two, I would say that you've uncovered a significant instance of semantic waffling. (Note that I'm not suggesting *RVW* ever engaged in any dissimulation, only that "studied with" can cover an awfully broad range and that others might well have inflated matters.) "Advice" might not have come over tea and scones, or whatever, but it could well have constituted informal interactions along the lines of "I've been working on something and would like you to look at it and offer suggestions; mind if I drop by for a couple of hours?" In other words, I think you've hit on something suggesting that conventional wisdom may have been reading far too much into the actual record and that further investigation is definitely warranted. Thanks for raising this issue! Drhoehl (talk) 20:25, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm quite new to all this and have only just read your comments. RVW did study with Ravel. He intended to approach d'Indy first, but M. D. Calvocoressi introduced him to Ravel, whom he met on December 12th, 1907. As a result, RVW stayed for three months in Paris, having lessons 4-5 times a week - mainly orchestration. After RVW had returned to England, Ravel tried unsuccessfully to secure a Paris performance of In the Fen Country - the work of "a pupil of whom I am proud". This is all detailed, with letters and references, in "R.V.W." by Ursula Vaughan Williams [OUP 1964].Willowmusic (talk) 23:55, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Composer project review[edit]

I've reviewed this article as part of the Composers project review of its B-class articles. This is clearly a fine article; my detailed review is on the comments page. I have a few small things to note:

  • the lead mentions things not otherwise in the body (estate royalties); should there be a section or paragraph discussing the legacy of his estate?
  • the article needs more images
  • GA/FA reviewers are going to complain about some paragraphs (and possibly some sentences) that are missing inline citations.

I think the article is A-level, and approaching FA quality. Magic♪piano 13:28, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

IP recent edits[edit]

So an IP made a bunch of edits, almost certainly in good faith; however, much of it added unnecessarily words that changed the tone, though there does seem like some of it may have been improvements. I reverted them, hopefully not being too hasty, but adding things like "One of his most famous inspirations" just seems a bit odd. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 14:09, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Notable aspects of compositions for the lead[edit]

Part of the lead currently reads

I removed the phrase "very effectively" from the end because this seems to be subjective. Whether the phrase is interpreted generally ("to great effect") or specifically ("producing a particular, intended outcome"), it's just not clear what effect is being 'effectively' produced, although "irritating Ravel's critics" is perhaps plausible. Seriously, though, I think the point is to just mention the notable aspects of his compositions, right? That is, his compositions were unusual in that they were complex, requiring virtuosity and/or an abundance of sound/instrumentation/rhythm/whatever. Is that correct? If so, then the paragraph should just say that explicitly, and then use the current text as examples. —mjb (talk) 05:45, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

agnostic mother[edit]

I apologize if this has been discussed in the past, but the article states that Ravel's parents were both Catholics. This source identifies her as a "violent agnostic."

http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/i/ivry-ravel.html

Is it worth changing?--Atwardow (talk) 15:41, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Both his parents described as Catholics means that they were baptised in the Catholic religion, but not necessarily that they were profoundly religious or practicing Catholics, the majority of French Catholics are not. Consequently, while a baptised Catholic, Ravel's mother was an "agnostic" - *violent* ? wouldn't *outspoken* have been a better term to use for the author of the NYT article?
--Frania W. (talk) 13:06, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure it would have been a better word. But it seems to me that agnosticism and Catholicism are incompatible insofar as the former refuses to take a position on an issue regarded as absolutely essential by the latter, so I thought it might be worth including if the topic of Ravel's parents' religion is involved.--Atwardow (talk) 14:26, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

citation fiddling[edit]

Hi all- Unless there are any major objections, I'd like to tidy up the references in the article by using the harvnb template for notes, and collect all the references under its heading. Aside from the aggregation of references, there will be no appreciable difference except the lack of comma between author and year in the footnotes. I've started already at User:Blehfu/Maurice Ravel. Feedback appreciated. --Blehfu (talk) 18:00, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Copyright[edit]

Hello, Ravel's works are out of copyright in France following the decision of the Cour de cassation (French Supreme Court) in 2007. See the article in French, and commons:Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests#Works_of_Maurice_Ravel. I removed the phrase saying the opposite. Yann (talk) 09:20, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't think this is correct. Everything I read says that the prorogations de guerre were only struck down for non-musical works but remain in effect for musical works, which means that musical works published through 1920 are copyrighted into 2022 and post-1920 musical works (published before 1947) are copyrighted into 2016. cmadler (talk) 12:59, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
The following statement is incorrect: "according to the governing copyright laws of most countries around the world, including all members of the World Trade Organization, Ravel's works fell into the public domain." The United States of America is a member of the World Trade Organization, though some of Ravel's works still receive copyright protection in the United States (e.g. Bolero, which was published in 1928, is protected under US copyright law for 95 years after the publication date, or until 2024). I have removed the mention of the World Trade Organization, and replaced "most" with "many" for these reasons.Erikwithuhk (talk) 14:15, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
This is incorrect, US copyright for published works (such as Bolero) is the "life of the author plus 70 years, and for works of corporate authorship to 120 years after creation or 95 years after publication, WHICHEVER ENDPOINT IS EARLIER" <emphasis mine>. In this case the earlier date is in fact 1937+70=2007, which coincides with the French court ruling in 2007. Please see here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Term_Extension_Act
All of Ravel's works are indeed now in public domain. 132.3.37.79 (talk) 11:58, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

WP:ENGVAR[edit]

Jerome Kohl is right, however I was reverting someone who changed a bunch of words with no edit summary. Being Ravel is French, there's no bias toward which type is used and thus I assumed what was there was 'right'. If someone wishes to go through and see which version it 'should' be based on WP:ENGVAR, go ahead, otherwise I'll revert again. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 21:59, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

If I had understood this, I might not have reverted your reversion of someone else's edit. Perhaps you should have mentioned this in your edit summary. However, since the subject of Ravel's nationality has come up, why are most of the dates given in M-D-Y order, which—English-language variant aside—is not appropriate for subjects geographically situated outside of the US?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:06, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
Most likely because someone from the US did it and didn't think of it. As for my edit summery, well I tend to assume most people will look at all the edits they've missed, not just the most recent one...♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 00:18, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
Well, I should probably be more attentive to such possibilities, but I am all too used to drive-by editors who think their local variety of English is the only correct one. As to the date format, it first appears at creation of the article, which initially was region-free in all other respects, and was made by an editor who self-identified as a German native, resident at Cambridge in the UK. Go figure.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 03:59, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
OK, I've done the donkey work. The language of this article remained region-neutral until 26 November 2004, when this edit established American English with the addition of the word "color".—Jerome Kohl (talk) 04:37, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Ravel research on 'Frontispice' of 1918.[edit]

Anyone with information, please help. 'Frontispice' was first published in the Paris fashion magazine 'Feuillets d'art" of August 1919. Ravel's publishers, Durand et Cie, had sole publishing rights. I am informed that they took legal action and had this magazine removed from circulation because of this infringement. I have contacted the present owners of Durand et Fils, who say all old records are with the central Paris Library. And the Library informs me that their documents of this period have been destroyed. In any case, Frontispice seems to have been eventually officially published in 1975. The composition was little known before this. Even the British Museum only received their original Frontispice copy in 1959, and few musicologists of that era were aware of its existence. A number of todays researchers of 'Ravel' with whom I have been in contact have not been able to shed light on this subject.

Probably the best source on this curious little piece in English is Deborah Mawer's essay, “Musical Objects and Machines”, in The Cambridge Companion to Ravel, edited by Deborah Mawer (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000), 47–70. There is a short paragraph describing its metrical arrangement in the Wikipedia article on Quintuple meter. I hope this helps.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:55, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Infobox was reverted[edit]

Hello. I tried to add to add an infobox to add clarity to the layout of the page, but it was reverted. I hope someone reverts the reversion, just to make the page look less bad. I think it would be a waste of time for me to argue about this, so I will let others decide. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 00:38, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

You haven't read the item I tried to call your attention to (after you failed to read the very polite note immediately below which you placed your infobox, which also asked you to read it). Will you look at it now, please? Here it is again, for the third time: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Classical_music/Guidelines#Biographical_infoboxes.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 00:41, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Forgive me - I've just updated that link re "Biographical infoboxes", both in JK's post and in the article itself, as it appeared to have been moved since the notice was originally posted in the article. Alfietucker (talk) 07:57, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, but why should you ask forgiveness for rendering a service? I would like also to note that this topic was discussed, briefly, once before on this talk page.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:18, 16 July 2014 (UTC)