User talk:Brianboulton

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

List 1: projected TFA dates[edit]

List 2: FAs not scheduled or projected as TFA[edit]


Reminder to me: check opera discographies - regularly.


Watch it! (prose and referencing)


Hi, after waiting 14 (and a bit) days, I’ve reopened the PR here: Wikipedia:Peer review/Oxford English Dictionary/archive2. Thanks for your help! DavidPKendal (talk) 20:25, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Joining the US[edit]

I see the US has gone on their annual holiday in celebration of your birthday: I'll join them in wishing you many happy returns!. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 07:15, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

4th July 2006 Pacific Palisades HS Fireworks.jpg

How kind of them, and of you for remembering! Brianboulton (talk) 08:56, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Ah, The Cat beat me to it. May your day be merry and bright, and may all your Christmases... (sorry, wrong season!) Enjoy, Sir Brian! BencherliteTalk 09:47, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 4[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Horatio Bottomley, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Weekly Dispatch. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:51, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 02 July 2014[edit]


Hello, Brianboulton. Please check your email – you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{YGM}} template.
Hi, Brian. :) Since I don't see a response to my email and you're actively editing, I just wanted to stop and ask if I should presume you're not interested. If you're not interested, of course, I will approach others, but it would be good to know. There are limited slots for this, and I would not like to look elsewhere if you are simply considering it. Thanks! --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 13:50, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
No, no, I shall be pleased to help. My non-response is a product of my erratic email, which sometimes lets me in and sometimes doesn't. I will try again this evening, and make appropriate arrangements then. If the email refuses to play ball, I'll deal with it through your talk page. Sorry for any misunderstanding. Brianboulton (talk) 14:25, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Wonderful! I'm delighted that you're willing to help out. And there are no misunderstandings; the whole purpose of my note here was to make sure of that. :D --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 15:05, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Given email issues, Brian, I thought I would bring this here. :) Would one of these work for you?

Windows close quickly, so I wanted to get your preference as quickly as possible so I can lock it in. :) Just in case, it would be really helpful if you could pick your top 3 if you have them from among those times. Thanks much! --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 15:44, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

This is confirmed and on the calendar for Monday 21 July 9:00 p.m. BST, 1:00 Pacific.  :) Once again, thank you so much! If you haven't already, you should look for an email from User:Philippe (WMF) with just a bit more information. Please let me know if I can assist in any way. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 13:23, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Well, um, nevermind. Something has come up that time that she cannot avoid. :/ Per your email, she can do 1:00 p.m. Pacific on 7/18. Please let me know if that will no longer work for you and sorry about the schedule change! --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 01:17, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
This is OK: 1.00 pm Pacific Time, i.e. 9.00 pm BST, on Friday 18 July. Brianboulton (talk) 08:31, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Noye's Fludde[edit]

I hope you won't be too annoyed that I've got a bit carried away/took the bit between my teeth and started compiling sections for upgrading the article. I thought I should let you know asap in case there was some danger of duplicating work: I've already worked up two sections sufficiently (without suggesting they're quite complete) to be seen by you and for you to say if they're along the right lines. They're in one of my sandboxes: one is Commission and Composition (or, as per your proposed subheading, "Creation"); the other is First cast and performance ("Premiere" in your headings).

If in fact you've already started drafting similar sections, I will defer and assume we'll work using your version as the foundation (since you elected to upgrade the article in the first place). All best, Alfietucker (talk) 18:50, 9 July 2014 (UTC) p.s. I see you have now drafted a structure: I've amended my message above accordingly. Alfietucker (talk) 20:28, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Good to see you quick of the mark! I shall be a little slower; meanwhile, I have added a draft article structure and some notes to the workpage. Comment there as necessary. Brianboulton (talk) 08:46, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
I've written the sections "Background", "Creation" and "Premiere", which I think are ready for you to cast a beady eye over when you've a moment. (I've also drafted a section about Mackerras's falling out with Britten, but I'm not quite sure that this is really so relevant to the opera so much as to Britten's own biography.)
I'll do likewise to any sections you've got ready, as and when.
Let me know if there are any other sections you'd like me to crack on with. I've got plenty of sources for a musical analysis of the work, but I'm happy to leave this to you if you're particularly keen to do this. I could also/instead write a section about the work's subsequent publication and Britten's correspondence with his publishers re the unusual instrumentation. Alfietucker (talk) 19:07, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
I have a section on the Chester mystery plays almost ready, and will post to your sandbox within the next 20 minutes. Looking at your drafts, excellent work, but maybe a trife overdetailed for a "background" section – I'll look at that aspect. As to the Mackerras issue, I'd say it's irrelevant here, and would prefer not to include it. Brianboulton (talk) 20:27, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Re the Mackerras issue, you may have noticed I removed this, as I was inclined to agree with you that it's not entirely relevant.
I see you went ahead and posted the entire prepared text in the article, though I said I would be looking at this this evening. OK, though I'm a little sorry that as a result my authorship of the "Inception", "Creation" and "Premiere" sections as written up to that point has been somewhat subsumed. Never mind. Do go ahead and draft the section on the music itself: I'll draft the section on the opera's publication (important/of interest, as I've previously said, due to some of its unusual instrumentation), and post this when ready. All best, Alfietucker (talk) 20:19, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Posting sections to the article does not mean finalisation; the sections are still drafts and capable of much further amendment. I change my prose all the time, up to and including the final review stages (note, incidentally, that before posting there, I substantially reduced the Chester miracle play intro, in response to your justified suggestion that it was too detailed). I find it helpful to see the sections within the format of the article, even while the prose is still taking shape; I'm sorry if you feel that your authorship has been "subsumed" – that isn't the intention, I assure you. Such changes as I've suggested have been to help the overall coherence and flow of the article, not to attack your prose. A couple of further things: 1) I think in the "premiere" section we should include a brief precis of Colin Graham's note in the programme for the first performance, emphasising the close relationship required between performers and audience; 2) We should consider splitting the the Premiere section between "Performance" and "Critical reception"; in addition to what you've included, there are important review comments from Opera magazine (August 1958) and Tempo (Autumn 1958) that I think should be included. Brianboulton (talk) 21:23, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your explanation, which makes sense. Just to assure you, by saying I felt my authorship was "somewhat subsumed", I was not referring to you doing more tweaks to text I'd written; rather, I only meant that since it was you who inserted those sections of text I'd written into the Noye's Fludde article, they appeared (in the revision history) under your name rather than mine (hence why - before I realised you had already posted the text into the article - I suggested in this post on my talk page that "I'll leave it to you to add the "Chester mystery plays" section (so you get due credit)"). I apologise if I was, as a result, a little touchy: given your past excellent work with Tim, I should have trusted your action in this matter and not been quite so solipsistic.
Agree with your suggestion re Colin Graham's note - do you want to add this, or shall I?
Also agree about review comments from Opera and Tempo: do go ahead and add these. Since we're creating a new section, I might have another look at the reviews I have repro'd in Letters from a Life, Vol. V (apart from the ones I've already quoted, there's The Sunday Times 22 June; The Observer 22 June; and New York Times, 6 July) and see what representative/pertinent extracts I can quote from these. Alfietucker (talk) 21:48, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

The Diary of a Nobody[edit]

I see that some overlinking and MOS errors have crept into this. All the best! -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:28, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the warning. I've dealt with the overlink in the lead; most of the other issues were in the "Adaptations" section where I've tidied up and added a couple of citations. As far as I can see all is well now; if you spot anything else you think is problematic, please giv me a prompt. Brianboulton (talk) 17:39, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Horatio Bottomley[edit]

Bottomley is now at peer review, and any interested visitor to this page is welcome to add a comment there. Brianboulton (talk) 18:54, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 July 2014[edit]

July 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Noye's Fludde may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • mystery plays, in a version selected and edited by [[Alfred W. Pollard]],<ref name=carpenter381/>) which ultimately became the source for the libretto of ''Noye's Fludde''.<ref>Britten (2008): p.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 11:40, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Noye's Fludde may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • used the Chester play cycle as the text for his 1952 ''[[Five Canticles#Canticle II|Canticle II]]''), based on the story of [[Abraham]] and [[Isaac]]. ''Noye's Fludde'' was originally commissioned by

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:23, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Christopher Ede and Noye's Fludde[edit]

This is really regarding Noye's Fludde, but I've just discovered another link between the original Mystery plays and Britten's opera. Reading Letters from a Life, Vol V I discovered that the 1951 Festival of Britain revival of the Chester mystery plays which you mention in the "Background" section was produced by Christopher Ede (who happened to be husband of Joy Boughton, a close associate of Britten's), who subsequently directed a production of Noye's Fludde in late 1959. Given this connection, I thought it would be nice to include this production in the performance history, and also slip in mention of Ede in the "Background" section.

I found this, for example, as a possible reference, but I thought maybe Ede would feature in one of your sources (Thacker & Lewis?) you've already cited. If so - and if you think it appropriate - perhaps you could do the honours? Alfietucker (talk) 23:05, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

I'll add the Ede credit into the Chester backgrouns section. Thacker doesn't mention him, so I'll use your ref. On the matter of Graham's programme note, I thought I would slip it into the Creation section, as a quote box, in place of the ark image which I will shift down to the Synopsis section. I'll try that out later, see how it looks. Brianboulton (talk) 09:13, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

What I did on my Summer Holidays[edit]

Still a few more days until I'm off this rustbucket but my efforts to avoid the buffet and bingo have yielded some fruit (and I'm avoiding the fruit machines as well). Peer review is here, still some minor citing to be done at the end and possibly some images added, but those can wait for better internet access. Thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:57, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I hope the aforementioned rustbucket makes it safely to port (I'm currently working on Noye's Fludde, and the words "For those in peril on the sea" are ringing in my ears). I hope to get to Mr Hay in a day or two, where I will doubtless meet other familiar figures from the Gilded Age. WSafe passage home. Brianboulton (talk) 09:20, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Not much peril except overindulging, I'm afraid. Many thanks for the good wishes.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:58, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Further thoughts on Noye's structure[edit]

Further to my reply on my talk page, I've done a bit more reading and experimenting, and now think - rather - that after "Premiere" we might have a section "Subsequent performances and publication", which will cover the Southwark Cathedral performance (Britten's first step to make the opera have a life beyond Aldeburgh), the vexed question of scarcity of handbells, and Britten's insistence (to his publishers in particular) on the character of the work needing a large contingent of amateur child performers, most particularly in the orchestra; and perhaps, also, the German premiere which exemplified what Britten thought was *not* what the work was about.

After that, we can then have a brief history of landmark performances "since Britten" (so to speak), using the current title "Later performance history": I'd like to include Ede's performance (or should this be under the section "Subsequent performances and publication"?), and also Jonathan Miller's Round House production - his first venture into directing opera, though I've yet to find the exact date for this. Hope that all sounds ok, though let me know your thoughts. Alfietucker (talk) 19:29, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree: the present "Later Performance history" section is wholly inadequate, and a magnet for the indiscriminate addition of just about any performance, noteworthy or not. Can I leave this part of the article to you, in the first instance? Also, I have left some issues for you to consider on your talk. Brianboulton (talk) 20:49, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
I've now added a new section "Subsequent performances and publication". My next effort will be looking at "Later performance history" - wish me luck! Alfietucker (talk) 22:10, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Une Carmen[edit]

Did you know that today is the 80th birthday of a French composer, Philippe Capdenat, who wrote Une Carmen, with Arab-Andalusian flavour. It made me think of (and word a hook about) Carmen. We never asked our readers if they prefer a side navbox with the composer's image to an infobox with Carmen pictured. What do you think of showing them the protagonist for a day (or week, or month)? Perhaps as an identibox, well taken in L'Arianna? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:33, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

I have to admit that I've never heard of Capdenat, but I don't suppose he's heard of me either. What you suggest re Carmen, if done with the identibox, would probably meet with a few objections; one problem would be to find a suitable place for the Bizet image. I might try something on the quiet in a day or two, so keep an eye on it. Brianboulton (talk) 15:21, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, quietly ;) - DYK worked a little miracle, writing and appearing the same day, it will appear soon. I also never heard of Capdenat until I heard his student's work and liked it, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:32, 17 July 2014 (UTC)


Hi, Brian. A while ago you looked over Harry Glicken for me at a peer review. I've done a major rehaul of the prose mostly from your comments, and I was wondering if you had the time to give it a look and tell me what else needs to be corrected. I'd appreciate your help, and of course I'd love to return the favor. Thanks! ceranthor 18:52, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Went ahead and listed it at FAC. Would appreciate any feedback. ceranthor 23:01, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for all your help, Brian. Let me know if anything else still needs to be fixed. ceranthor 21:44, 22 July 2014 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Brianboulton. You have new messages at Alfietucker's talk page.
Message added 21:48, 17 July 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Alfietucker (talk) 21:48, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Noye's Fludde "Later performances"[edit]

I've now dug up info on productions by Christopher Ade, Jonathan Miller, and a few other "landmarks" (such as the Canadian premiere). I've added these in a version in my sandbox, and removed John Langstaff simply because I couldn't find any information about this and thought perhaps it's not so important. Otherwise - for now - I've left the rest of what's there. I'd welcome your thoughts on what should be cut, and what (perhaps) should be expanded upon.

I'll be out the rest of today, but hope to get back to Fludde matters tomorrow. All best, Alfietucker (talk) 11:50, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 July 2014[edit]

New findings about Shackleton[edit]

How do you find this?--Shacklewatch (talk) 22:49, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

You could add a line in the Harry McNish article. I've no other comment. Brianboulton (talk) 23:06, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Noye update[edit]

During the course of a somewhat torrid day, this is what I've done:

  • In the Premiere section:
  • Added image, some details relating to Crawford and participating schools
  • Added critical comments from Tempo and Opera magazines. I've also reduced the Times quote – no reason to give the Times twice as much space as others. I feel that, with contributions from The Guardian, DT, Sunday Times, Tempo, Opera and The Times, we have enough. We ought, though, to try and get these cited directly to the newspapers – I think Tim will be helpful here, and I'll have a word. Also, I no longer think, as I previously suggested, this section should be split. It looks about right as it is.
  • All good work. AT
  • In the Performance requirements section:
  • Removed the Crawford details – they're more appropriate in the Premiere section
  • Not too worried about this, though mentioning him there ties in with what the first sentence of that section says - "in light of how it was cast and performed at its premiere" (i.e. why it's suggested that Jaffet may be played by a broken-voiced tenor, since this actually involves some re-writing of the vocal part Britten originally composed and which is given in the main score). AT
  • Added a bit about performances intended for halls or churches, not theatres etc
  • Split and repunctuated an overlong sentence in the second para.
  • Good work. AT
  • In this same paragraph, can you consider what our general readers will make of phrases such as "able to play in third position" and "able to flutter-tongue"?
  • I'll see if I can find some appropriate wikilinks. (Now done. If you or other editors feel this is still too specialist, we can of course cut the info.) AT
  • Also, do we really need Imogen's bletherings about handbells? This is anecdotal detail, idiosyncratic rather than encyclopedic in tone, and distracting. Imogen aleady has a quote in the preceding paragraph. Also, the Premiere section, as per the official programme, has the handbell ringers from Leiston Modern school, not the local Aldeburgh Youth Club – not mutually exclusive, but unnecessarily confusing to readers. And the anecdote has nothing to do with "performance requirements".
  • Fair point (Imogen almost certainly didn't have perfect recall, any more than did Boris Ford in the recollections of an earlier section!) - I'll have another look at that section. AT
  • The last brief paragraph in the section is uncited – but again does not really qualify as part of performance requirements.
  • Hmm - maybe not, but I'm rather inclined to think that some comment about the handbells is appropriate. A citation can certainly be given to the first part of the sentence before the comma if necessary, and the rest is borne out by "Subsequent performances and publication". But I won't fight tooth and nail for the sentence's retention. AT
p.s. I've just paraphrased Imogen's anecdote, and joined what was the last paragraph to the end of that paragraph - it runs quite naturally - and have added some citations. Let me know if you think that still doesn't work. Alfietucker (talk) 22:28, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Finally: I've not done anything about this yet, but... I am becoming increasingly convinced that my original structure plan with "Roles" and "Synopsis" between Background and Creation, is the right one. Readers need to know who the main characters are, and what the main story is, in order to make proper sense of the Creation section, where at present the characters and some aspects of the story are discussed in a vacuum. I will return to this viewpoint later. Brianboulton (talk) 23:01, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I've just re-read the "Creation" section in light of your commment, and I'm still not really convinced that we need "Roles and "Synopsis" before this. As I mentioned before, the story of Noah and his ark is surely very well known to most readers, and really there's not a lot more that needs to be explained. If we are to shunt "Roles" and "Synopsis" earlier on the grounds that we need to tell readers "who the main characters are, and what the main story is", then really we should place those sections immediately after the Lead section - i.e. before "Background"/"Chester mystery plays", since that section mentions the play's "depiction of Noah's wife, and by implication women generally, as disobedient, obdurate and finally abusive". Still, I'm not entirely sure even this is necessary. In fact, I would (still) argue that it's more important to foreground the community ethos of the opera, its relatively large-scale use of amateur forces - in short, lay out its extraordinary nature - rather than start with the rather well-known story it is based on (surely deliberately chosen for that very reason). But I am willing to be persuaded if there's some point I've missed in all of this. Alfietucker (talk) 21:40, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
  • It is true that most readers will have an idea of the Noah story in outline, but until they have read the synopsis, they won't know how the story is to be played out here. In the opera there is a range of characters – the Voice of God, Noye's sons and their wives, Mrs Noye's Gossips, the Raven, the Dove, there is the role of the children in impersonating the animals as they enter the ark, and the function of the audience as a congregational choir. All these characters and aspects of the production are at present introduced in the "Performance requirements" section, with no context. The reader will have a much better understanding of this section, including what you call "the community ethos of the opera", if they have have previously read a brief and intelligently-written synopsis of the action (the present synopsis needs some attention). It is surely illogical to discuss "performance requirements" before the nature of the performance has been explained. My mention of Noah and his wife in the Chester play introduction is in reference to the mystery play, not to the opera, but it's not a critical factor as to whether that mention is retained.
As you know, my initial draft structure for the article placed roles and synopsis before creation. When you queried this I didn't immediately press the point, as I thought it prudent to see how the alternative order panned out. I'm no longer in any doubt; I hope that you can swallow yours. If you remain unconvinced, we can always put this issue to peer reviewers at a later stage in the article's development.
While I wait for JSTOR to fire up again so that I can get on with the music section, I'm going to do some work on "Inception", and I'll also try and make the "Recordings" section a little tidier. With so few recordings, I'm in two minds about whether a table is strictly necessary. I'm surprised there aren't more recordings. Brianboulton (talk) 15:02, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Following your comment, I've just checked about recordings, and there's at least one more, conducted by Richard Hickox, which should be included. I'll check if there are any others, and am very happy to add those to the table.
I can also have a go at improving the synopsis. I quite accept the points you make - thanks for making them clear: I'm afraid I was rather thinking of the synopsis as simply an outline of the story, but clearly there's scope to make it much more than this (i.e. explain how the various stage performers are involved). So long as that's the case, then I see the merit of placing Roles and Synopsis before Creation. Alfietucker (talk) 15:18, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
There are at least 2 recordings not included at present – the Hickox that you mention, and one with Benjamin Luxon as the Voice of God. There are others listed here [1], but some are of dubious provenance; investigations continue. Thank you for your positive response to my structural concerns. On the synopsis, don't bust a gut yet – I suggest this is left until the later stages, when we're clear about the rest of the article. Brianboulton (talk) 15:47, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
I've now listed both those recordings (Hickox on Virgin, and Luxon on Somm). As you say, the list you found includes another three recordings, not listed in the WP article, which may be of dubious provenance. Are you looking into these now? If so, shall I leave it to you to decide whether any are to be included or not? Alfietucker (talk) 15:56, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
The other three are another German translation and what look like recordings of amateur performances in American churches. We needn't bother with these – I'm equally dubious about the Irmingard Goubeau recording. I've never heard of FSM as a recording label. I googled it, and found this], which looks like a more recent manifestation. I'm inclined to kick Goubeau out. Also, I'm not satisfied with Operadis as the sole source for recording details, and will add other refs. Leave this to me - it makes no sense to duplicate our efforts. Brianboulton (talk) 16:15, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
In a previous life, I used to deal with coverage of North American labels for a mag, and I seem to recall FSM being one - a rather "also ran" label, if I remember rightly. I'm very happy to leave the recording box to you now I've got Hickox and the Finchley Children's Group recordings in, but let me know if there's any discographical chasing you'd like me to do. I also had a tinker with synopsis, but that's just a small nudge for a process we'll do properly later, as you suggest. Alfietucker (talk) 16:27, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Just to say I've replied to your message on my talk page. Alfietucker (talk) 23:23, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

John Hay[edit]

Axe duly applied, down to 99K from 115 where it was. I think it's worth you taking a look at. Glad you liked the Bizet photo, nice place to visit but wouldn't want to spend eternity there (not that you do, they are anxious to resell your grave for all but the rich and famous). It took about 20 minutes to find Benjamin's grave.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:01, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

I have nominated Hay here. Your comments very welcome.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:32, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Please fill out your JSTOR email[edit]

As one of the original 100 JSTOR account recipients, please fill out the very short email form you received just recently in order to renew your access. Even though you signed up before with WMF, we need you to sign up again with The Wikipedia Library for privacy reasons and because your prior access expired on July 15th. We do not have your email addresses now; we just used the Special:EmailUser feature, so if you didn't receive an email just contact me directly at Thanks, and we're working as quickly as possible to get you your new access! Jake (Ocaasi) 19:48, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Note, the above is a mass message--I already have yours! :) Jake Ocaasi t | c 19:50, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Emilio Aragón's El Diluvio de Noé[edit]

Now we've slimmed down the table of recordings for Noye's Fludde, I can't help feeling that Aragón's is rather an odd version to include. I suppose it's nice to show that Britten's opera has sufficient currency abroad to have non-English versions recorded, but since we've already hoofed off the German version shouldn't we perhaps give this one the chop too if we're going to be selective? None of the performers seem particularly well-known outside Spain (certainly none of them have an English Wikipedia article), nor does the recording appear to have much if any official distribution outside that territory (South America, maybe?). Or am I missing something here?

btw, I've also responded to some of your points on my talk page. Good night! Alfietucker (talk) 23:23, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

The only reason I kept the Spanish recording was that it was issued by Deutsche-Grammaphon, while the German and other Operadis-listed issues were recorded by minor or unknown companies, and probably had very small distributions. If you think that's not reason enough to keep it, feel free to delete. I've been concentrating on other things in the last 24 hours, in the expectation that my jstor will resume today (see above) and that I can get on with drafting the music section. In any case, I'll be back tonight to look at some of the outstanding issues other than the music section. Brianboulton (talk) 11:46, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
I've deleted the DG recording (for now - maybe we'll think of a good reason to reinstate it later), and relabelled the section "Selected recordings".
I'm out this evening, but hope to check in again tomorrow. Good luck, and have fun with the music section! Alfietucker (talk) 15:49, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Not a good Place?[edit]

I was about to go the talk page of your "friend".

But then I remembered this quote:

I never was in such a horrid office . . . It's not very nice to be where people are being swindled all day long, is it?”

and then I clicked the "back"-button... — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:33, 24 July 2014 (UTC)


Testing, testing, testing, testing... (talk) 23:54, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Also testing[edit]

Sorry about the delay, fell asleep early last night.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:27, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

As you can see, message received, also the delayed test above, but some curious things all happened simultaneously yesterday evening, and I have no idea why:
  • I have lost the "sandbox" link on the top right, alongside "preferences" etc
  • Go into your preferences, then choose the "Gadgets" tab. The fourth batch of options is titled "Appearance", and the sandbox link is the third one down. - SchroCat (talk) 09:49, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
  • That box is ticked. Something is overriding it. Brianboulton (talk) 10:35, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I have lost the toolbar immediately below the edit window that acsesses sign and symbols, even though my preference settings say that the toolbar is there
  • Has the toolbar gone entirely, or is it just most of the signs and symbols? - SchroCat (talk) 10:01, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
  • The bar has gone entirely - again, the appropriate box is ticked in preferences, but is again being overridden
  • I have lost "show" and "hide" links on collapsed headings.
  • Possibly also in Preferences/Gadget/Appearances: there is a "Allow navigation menus to be collapsed" option that may be worth playing with. - SchroCat (talk) 10:01, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
  • There is no such option listed in "Appearances" or anywhere else in preferences. Brianboulton (talk) 10:35, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Also, I seem to have lost the orange bar warning of incoming talk messages (an option I kept when this system changed).
  • Depending on whether you installed a piece of java script when the changeover ocurred, you may see an option to use OBOD (Orange Bar of Doom) in your Preferences/Gadget/Appearances - that controls it (according to this. - SchroCat (talk) 09:58, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I did the java installation at the time, & the bar has worked perfectly until yesterday. There is no orange bar option listed under "appearances" Brianboulton (talk) 10:35, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Oddly, all of the above facilities are still present when I log in to my backup laptop, so it's an issue with my regular machine.

I'm not asking you how to fix these problems, but the help/advice of any passing genius who understands such things would be much appreciated. Brianboulton (talk) 09:22, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

SchroCat, thanks indeed for your attempts to resolve this, but thus far to no avail. As I say, the problems are not present on my backup computer - it's something that appears to be specific to this particular machine - most odd. Brianboulton (talk) 10:40, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Tucker mail[edit]

Hello, Brianboulton. Please check your email – you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{YGM}} template.
Many thanks Brianboulton (talk) 10:40, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
I've just discovered some mail you sent me back on 15 July, which had been delivered to my junk folder. I've just replied to this with your requested attachment (if it's not immediately evident, do check your junk folder!). All best, Alfietucker (talk) 11:04, 25 July 2014 (UTC)


Hi Brian, I've submitted FGM for formal peer review; see Wikipedia:Peer review/Female genital mutilation/archive1. I wanted to let you know following on from your informal (and extremely helpful) review of it. If you're too busy, don't worry. I submitted it on the spur of the moment before I had a chance to change my mind! SlimVirgin (talk) 18:14, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

I would like to review this. Oddly, only the other day I was reading in Caroline Elkins's book about the suppression of the Kikuyu by the British Kenya colonists that the outlawing by the British of the tribal custom of female circumcision was one of (many) factors that precipitated the events that culminated in the Mau Mau revolt. That reminded me of your researches, and I meant to ask you whether this was still in progress. So I shall be glad tp pick it up at PR. It may be a couple of days or so, because I have a long review in progress at the moment, as well as several other projects – a current FA, an article approaching peer review, more research in the pipeline (and still no JSTOR!) Brianboulton (talk) 18:50, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
That's very kind, thank you, and there's no rush. I haven't edited the article for awhile, because I find it a difficult article to work on (not enjoyable in the slightest), so I have to pace myself. But I made a few edits recently, and forced myself in that mini bout of enthusiasm to post the peer-review tag. There's still a lot missing about the growth of the opposition in Africa, but I've decided all I can do is offer a sweep of it, so I'm hoping there's enough.
The lack of JSTOR is starting to bite. It wouldn't even let me add an article recently to my "shelf"; perhaps only certain kinds of articles are allowed, so I wasn't able to review an edit based on an article I'd previously used (but foolishly hadn't downloaded). SlimVirgin (talk) 19:14, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi, sorry, change of plan. The lack of JSTOR is making it too difficult to check things, so I've closed the peer review and I'll re-open at some point when JSTOR is back. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:23, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 July 2014[edit]

OBOD test[edit]

Does this create OBOD? The world awaits... (talk) 08:54, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

It most certainly did. The world can relax.Brianboulton (talk)

Noye's Fludde music section[edit]

First, I generally enjoyed your first draft - well done for stitching a narrative together from various commentaries. I've now fairly quickly but in some detail gone through the music section, and, as well as adding the reference for Evans, have made some changes, mostly to fix various slips which resulted in errors of fact (e.g. wrong key given for Mrs. Noye's first bit of music, or Carpenter's naive and essentially misleading/wrong observation about the Chinese temple blocks).

Just a a couple of observations on the text as it is now.

1) I cut the following sentence based on Whittall: "Musically the work has links with Britten's most recent opera, The Turn of the Screw, in particular the use of the twelve-note chromatic scale in both works, and the adaption of a theme from the earlier work in the latter." Whittall is not alone in suggesting there's use of a 12-note theme in Noye's Fludde: according to Evans, White made that observation about the passacaglia theme, though adding that since the theme has a total of 19 notes "this is perhaps not notably clinching". Evans goes on to suggest that "its moorings round C are made very secure initially by the anchoring Gs and the cadence which links its [the theme's] repetitions. the effect is of mildly chromaticized diatonic music"; Evans goes on to suggest that the theme, "not obviously congruous with the earlier melodic material, is, partly no doubt, to suggest the serpentine creeping onward of the waters but, more practically, to prepare an ambience in which Dykes's hymn, 'Eternal Father', will not appear ludicrously incongruous". Given that both White and Whittall mention the 12-note quality of the theme, perhaps we might mention it, but Evans's caveat makes a lot of sense and I think should be also included if their observation is.

It also wasn't at all clear what theme from Turn of the Screw has been adapted in Noye's Fludde. Unless this is of particular importance, I think it's safe to leave that out altogether.

2) Re. the organ music "that might indicate a flash of hostility towards the Church as an institution". This appears to be based entirely on Carpenter's surmise; against this, there's Graham Elliott, who suggests: "This artless passage is an example of Britten's gentle humour in recalling the rather heavy-handed modulatory excursions beloved of some organists in their attempts to urge a dilatory congregation into action." (We should also bear in mind that Britten did not turn his back on the church and its organ, but rather wrote yet another masterpiece, the Missa Brevis, which uses that instrument to effective and even amiable effect.) If you think we should nonetheless retain Carpenter's claim, then I think it should be as a footnote with Elliott's observation to balance it.

Otherwise, I think the section reads well on the whole. Let me know your thoughts. Alfietucker (talk) 17:36, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

p.s. I almost forgot to mention one more niggle, and that's Kildea's phrase "as much a cantata as an opera". Taken literally, this is nonsense: but my best guess is that he's referring to the use of three congregational hymns, which are - one might argue - akin to Bach's use of chorales in his cantatas. But given that there are no self-contained solo arias, such as one might expect in a cantata, and plenty of physical action such as one does not find in a cantata, I'm rather inclined to think Kildea has been a little careless/throwaway in the phrasing of his description. If we retain this, I think we must think carefully how to justify doing so.

The point that Britten uses hymns familiar to both his child performers and their audience is made more helpfully, in my opinion, by Evans who - looking forward to the Church Parables - observes: "Whereas the church parables were to couch their most overtly spiritual sentiments in terms of...Gregorian plainchant, his children in Noye's Fludde most effortlessly recognize an act of praise as their own when couched in terms to which their conditioning has accustomed them - that is, ...universally familiar English hymnody." Alfietucker (talk) 17:44, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

p.p.s. I've quoted passages verbatim, but of course understand that we should paraphrase in the article as appropriate. Alfietucker (talk) 18:09, 27 July 2014 (UTC)


Thanks for these excellent comments/suggestions.

  • I think we should mention the 12-note character of the theme, citing Whittall and White. We can forget the affinity with the James opera – Whittall does mention the adapted theme, and I was going to include this in a footnote, but I think it's not worth pursuing. Can I leave you to frame a sentence that mentions the 12-note point per Whittall/White, together with a brief summary of Evans's caveat?
  • I'm happy to give it a go, but may have to find White in the library (since Evans, though citing a page, has carelessly omitted to specify which White book he's referring to). AT
I've replaced White with Philip Brett with the same result. Alfietucker (talk) 20:47, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
  • On the organ passage, another source (I can't remember offhand which), says "...Tallis’s canon, which is disturbed briefly by an organ interlude that has not unreasonably been interpreted as a moment of residual hostility to the church as an institution." I thought this sort of chimed with Carpenter, but on reflection it doesn't really. I will rewrite this part; can you provide a ref for the Elliot quote?
  • The Elliot quote is from p. 69 (book already listed in sources). AT
  • I think Kildea's remark is valid, if somewhat simplistic – rather harsh to call it nonsense. It is a throwaway comment, but I think justifiable. Noye is not much like a traditional cantata, agreed, but it's not much like a traditional opera, either. Arguably it's as much like the one as the other. When I first attended a performance, in a church in Buckinghamshire, I didn't realise I was going to an "opera" (and probably wouldn't have gone if I had). I see no harm in retaining this observation.
  • I did mean if "taken literally", but maybe I was a little harsh. Still, I was thinking how "operatic" Bach's cantatas are often said to be, so it seemed topsy-turvy to me to suggest Noye's Fludde is "cantata"-like. In fairness to you, it could be said Noye's Fludde is far from a conventional opera, with a minimum of operatic-style singing. (I'm not quite sure whether the same could be quite said about the church parables, yet their style is so un-operatic that I remember a young Spanish guest who came to see them with me, though not a classical aficionado, being *very* struck by them; but she then proved quite impervious to the charms of Britten's more conventional operas. Anyway, that's by the by.) Even so, I wouldn't go so far as to say Noye's Fludde is "as much like one as the other"; it seems to me that it's essentially a music drama (I seem to remember reading Britten's own preferred definition of its genre - I'll see if I can dig it up) that *needs* to be acted for some of the music to make sense: e.g. the processions, or Mrs Noye giving her husband a hefty slap! But if you insist, we can try leaving in Kildea's comment, though - as I said - I think Peter Evans's explanation more helpful. AT
  • Since we don't have images for this section, if you'll provide the page ref, I'll make a quote box from Evans's comments on church parable and hymns. I find such boxes useful not only as means of breaking up slabs of print but also of preserving worthwhile observations that might get lost in the main narrative.
  • Here, in case you want to make use of it, is a fuller version of the quote from Evans (added text underlined): "...the approach to the story of Noah through an essentially medieval convention, realized in Elizabethan language of a fairly lowly order, was a splendid formula for arousing children's sense of the fitting. On the other hand, Britten is well aware that this sense has little to do with questions of literal consistency. Whereas the church parables were to couch their most overtly spiritual sentiments in terms of...Gregorian plainchant, his children in Noye's Fludde most effortlessly recognize an act of praise as their own when couched in terms to which their conditioning has accustomed them - that is, ...universally familiar English hymnody." Whether you use the added text or not, the page range is pp. 272-73. AT
  • Otherwise I think your changes are excellent, subject to some very minor tweaking.

Brianboulton (talk) 19:04, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Glad you approve of my editing. Comments to response to yours above. Alfietucker (talk) 20:06, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Turned out nice again![edit]

Evening Brian, I come with begging bowl once again, for another SchroCat & Cassianto special. This time it's the PR for George Formby for which I'm hoping to gather comments, complaints and constructive suggestions. If you're able to visit I'd be extremely grateful—there's no rush on this at all. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 22:26, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Of course – it will be a pleasure. I'll start in a day or two. Brianboulton (talk) 22:59, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Noye's Fludde as a whole[edit]

I haven't quite got fully "matured" thoughts on the article as yet; going through it this evening, I took the opportunity to zap some typos, iron out some inconsistencies, and add one or two points which I thought worth including (e.g. a musical link between Canticle II and Noye's Fludde). There does seem to be rather a lot of footnotes, but I'm not sure yet that that's a bad thing. The main text seems to flow ok as it is, and I *think* (or rather, seem to recall) that the footnotes are illuminating (with the possible exception of the second one - Imogen Holst's recollection - since I'm now less certain she was actually referring to Orford rather than Aldeburgh Parish Church); but I will look at them again with fresh eyes tomorrow or Friday. Alfietucker (talk) 20:54, 30 July 2014 (UTC)