Talk:Charles Villiers Stanford

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Featured article Charles Villiers Stanford is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on October 30, 2012.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
January 12, 2012 Peer review Reviewed
January 24, 2012 Featured article candidate Promoted
Current status: Featured article

Musical Times article[edit]

There is an article by Robert Anderson on Stanford, Bax and (George or Jonathan - presumably George?) Lloyd which at least mentions the 6th symphony in volume 130, February 1989, p 94 the Musical Times. Will log into my university staff account and read it (Jstor scanned it in, accessible using library acct) later, see if it contains any information on the symphony, the composer, helpful to any of the three composers' articles. Schissel | Sound the Note! 19:39, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Too much Beati![edit]

I added a sentence to the article (hopefully not disrupting the flow of the Britannica text) about the popularity of Beati Quorum Via in school choirs. My Glee Club is singing it right now, but we seem to be the only choir in the country that remembers the other two motets that go with it. Maybe they're not as good as Beati, but I like them performed as a set. -- The Realms of Gold (talk) 19:14, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that Beati is the most popular of the three motets, though my personal opinion is that it is most popular because it is the easiest! but that is not the point. I disagree strongly, however, in that it is "representative" of the "genre of Stanford, Elgar, Perry, &c." Maybe it represents part of Stanford's style, but I really don't think it represents the music of Elgar and Parry, as their styles are even more wide-ranging and diverse. Stefan (talk) 00:04, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

That's definitely fair. The sentence could be rewritten to say it's exemplary of the late English Romantic choral style. I gather that, while Elgar et. al. are much more wide-ranging across all genres, as far as sacred motets go, Stanford is pretty standard for the nation and for the time. But the English Romantics aren't my strong point, so anyone is free to revise as they see fit. -- The Realms of Gold (talk) 08:05, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Works list[edit]

There are at least three books of short organ preludes missing from the works list, including Op. 101 and 105. -- JTL 23:14, 24 January 2008 (EST) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)

There's loads missing from the works list - Stanford was unbelievably prolific! Is it really necessary? Wilus (talk) 13:16, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
No reason we can't have a 'major' works list on the main page, with an attempt at a complete one on a seperate page, like many other composers have. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 15:31, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


BBC Radio 3 seems to pronounce his second name as "Villers" quite consistently, as though they know something everyone else does not. Is that right? has anyone seen his birth certificate? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:22, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I was told years ago the correct pronunciation is indeed "Villers", but I can't cite a written authority for this. There's no doubt as to the spelling of his name however. Wilus (talk) 12:52, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Many English surnames, and English place names have anomalous pronunciations, which are unknown to outsiders. Villiers is pronounced /Villars/. The BBC have a guide to the correct pronunciation of proper names, that would be the source, though I can testify that members of the Villiers family do pronounce it with two syllables. The words 'medicine' and 'venison' are also bisyllabic in the Received Pronunciation of English. Llawdden (talk) 18:37, 30 October 2011 (UTC)


I don't mean to offend anyone, but the recording of 'The Blue Bird' is a particularly ugly recording. Is it possible to get a better one ? All very subjective, I know ! -Tpacw (talk) 11:06, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

You have to find a free one. Unfortunately, that's probably impossible. Goto any WP page with a recording, even very popular ones, and they will be just as bad, or worse. The basic reasoning is that it's better to have something free and bad than nothing at all. Agree or disagree, it's the general direction of WP. Check out the sound list for a large DIR of more free stuff just to see the general quality stuff takes. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 13:46, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah, right. Apologies - I didn't know how the system worked for sound recordings on wikipedia. Thanks for enlightening me. -Tpacw (talk) 14:56, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

This isn't just a poor recording - it's one countertenor singing all the parts and, while that's impressive, the result is a really bad representative of Stanford's music. If Wikipedia encourages editing for clarity, I think the novelty factor of this recording should be noted up front. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:50, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
And it's such a lovely piece... MistyMorn (talk) 17:20, 12 January 2012 (UTC)


Was this Irishman of catholic or protestant denomination? From Germany: Stephanie — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:03, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes. Tim riley (talk) 13:13, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Rereading the question I now suspect it asks which of the two he was. He was protestant. Tim riley (talk) 13:27, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. Perhaps that should be part of this excellent article? Stephanie — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:59, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Which flavor of Protestant? Church of Ireland? Also, what year did he go to Cambridge? The article is rather vague about that. Angr (talk) 13:59, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
I've added the year he went up to Cambridge. As to his religious affiliation, he was a conventional upper-middle-class churchman and not Roman Catholic. He wrote much religious music for the established church, some of it still in the Anglican repertoire. Tim riley talk 19:50, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

List of pupils[edit]

There is a list of Stanford's pupils in a paragraph in the article proper, followed by a list of pupils in a note, followed by a link to a list of his pupils. How many lists do we need? Hyacinth (talk) 23:06, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

An editor deleted a large amount of material from the list of big names in the article and added a clunky link in the text, which looked amateurish in the extreme. To placate him/her I put in the link in a less obtrusive note, in which minor names are listed. I wonder why that editor and you, Hyacinth (you are not presumably the same person) suddenly think you know better than the editors who peer reviewed this article and reviewed it at FAC. As to how many lists we need, I agree that three is probably too many. I suggest leaving the big names in the main text, the minor names in the note and deleting the unnecessary link to the third list. Tim riley talk 08:16, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
This article has been vetted by dozens of experienced editors. Any deletion of well-referenced information needs to have a clear consensus. Please explain, Hyacinth, why you believe that this discrete and compact footnote is not helpful in the article? It seems to me that it provides a useful list here, and we need not make readers click away to find the information. -- Ssilvers (talk) 13:56, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Despite Hyacinth's concern that three lists are too many I don't think the link to the omnium gatherum list of pupils does any harm, even though that page gets an average of less than one hit a day. Our first concern should be to benefit the reader: the link to the one-a-day page obviously doesn't belong in the main text, but leaving it in the footnote will not mislead many readers into clicking into that obscure article. I suggest, on reflection, that we leave the link in the footnote, rather than removing it altogether. Tim riley talk 18:59, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

His National Song Book[edit]

Have made a little stubb on his National Song Book but was not sure how to include mention of it here. (Msrasnw (talk) 13:25, 28 January 2016 (UTC))

Your new article is an admirable addition, if I may say so. I can see a suitable place to mention the book in the main Stanford article, but before I add it, was the publication date 1905 or 1906? The new article gives both dates. Tim riley talk 13:40, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Oh dear silly me - 1906.... Cox (1992) lists these (as well as some from 1951) as some of Stanford's publications ...
  • Stanford, C. V. (1884) Song-Book for Schools (being a Graduated Collection of Sixty-four Songs in One, Two and Three Parts Adapted for the Use of Children). London: National Society's Depository.
  • Stanford, C. V. (1906) The National Song Book. London: Boosey.
  • Stanford, C. V. (1908) Studies and Memories. London: Archibald Constable.
  • Stanford, C. V. (1909) Patriotic Songs for Schools: A Collection of Songs… taken almost entirely from ‘Song-Book for Schools’. London: National Society's Depository.
Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 14:21, 28 January 2016 (UTC))
This is all good stuff. Perhaps I should do a bit more research and add a "Publications by CVS" section. Meanwhile I've added a note about CVS and folk music and the National Song book to the Orchestral part of the Works section. Tim riley talk 14:58, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Many thanks and best wishes, (Msrasnw (talk) 15:00, 28 January 2016 (UTC))

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Charles Villiers Stanford. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:55, 20 November 2016 (UTC)