Talk:Willem Pijper

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Biography (Rated Start-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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 
WikiProject Opera (Rated Start-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!
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 


Untitled[edit]

Removed "Willem Pijper (1894–1947) is generally considered the most important figure in modern Dutch music." Not only POV, but just twaddle. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ilja.nieuwland (talkcontribs) 15:26:46, August 19, 2007 (UTC).

Added this back in - see your talk page on why. HammerFilmFan (talk) 11:35, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
And adapted it again to be less POV. Quite apart from the fact that such a search for 'the greatest' this or that reflects a now thoroughly outmoded and discredited view of history in general, I could think of at least five Dutch composers who would merit a similar epithet.

As to the opinions you quote: this David Wright you refer to on my talk page (who he? not a Dutch name and not a professor here, is he the organist from Worcester cathedral?) may say all he want, but Pijper´s stature isn't even close to Sibelius's in Finland. For one thing, unlike Sibelius he has never become a national symbol transcending his musical importance, and his works are rarely ever performed (and significantly less frequent than some other Dutch composers, such as Peter van Anrooy, Johan Wagenaar, Henk Badings, Van Bree or even Matthijs Vermeulen). If there's ONE composer that functions as a national symbol, the choice is between Sweelinck and Diepenbrock. But considering the lack of knowledge about our musical past (in stark contrast to awareness of national painters), none at all would be more realistic. Finally, I would take Grove's opinions on any music outside the UK or the Austro-German realm with a grain of salt. --Ilja.nieuwland (talk) 09:45, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Guessing that David Wright is probably the fellow who (used to?) write for MusicWeb. I'd take Grove's opinions on music inside the UK etc. with a grain of salt, also, but that's beside the point here. Also: nl-Wikipedia has Willem Frederik Johannes Pijper - if that's right, I think the mid-names should be here also. (Wasn't aware Diepenbrock was that close to qualifying. Intriguing!) Schissel | Sound the Note! 03:52, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Good call, Eric. Checked the middle names, they're correct. Diepenbrock was not a great composer (in my view), but an excellent marketeer with good relations (e.g. Mahler, Mengelberg) --Ilja.nieuwland (talk) 12:47, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
No argument from me about Sweelinck on notability or any other grounds, mind. (And as to lack of knowledge about musical past, *looks around self*... not going there...- well, at least people have heard two works by Copland even though they usually can't name the composer, and likewise one by Barber. Anyway. Digression.) Schissel | Sound the Note! 18:32, 7 September 2012 (UTC)