Talk:Joseph Holbrooke

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

Joseph > Josef[edit]

If he preferred the spelling Josef to the degree that he actually changed his name to Josef Holbrooke, shouldn't we call our article Josef Holbrooke? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 10:00, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Should not the name be what is usage in literature, on recordings, etc.? Which would appear to be Joseph even if is known he liked to be Josef. At what point did he change his name I dont know. The 1901 census has father (age 52) and he (age 23) both in the same house, both musicians and both Joseph Holbrook (not Holbrooke), understandably confusing people. Maybe it was then but I think the date of this important change should be discovered and given if possible. P0mbal (talk) 22:25, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
5th edition of Grove's says the name Josef appears on many of his published works. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 19:58, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
In my experience he is generally known as "Josef", so I would support moving the article to that spelling. --Deskford (talk) 16:37, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Hmmm. It's difficult to know just how seriously (and for how long) he used "f" ...
1904: married as Josef Charles Holbrooke
1911: gave census entry as Joseph Charles Holbrooke
Always? on electoral roll as Joseph Charles Holbrooke
1958: died as Joseph C. Holbrook (no e) (Okay, he didn't do the entry!)
1958: probate (to Dorothy Elizabeth Holbrooke) of "HOLBROOK Joseph Charles OR HOLBROOKE Joseph"
Overall impression is that the "e" on Holbrook(e) was for real, but the "f" for "ph" was a juvenile fad, or at any rate no more than a "professional" affectation? So, maybe we leave him as "Joseph (Charles) Holbrooke" (with an e)? Wyresider (talk) 21:45, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

A Bas les Etrangés![edit]

This is maybe a tad blog-ish to be strictly pukka under Wiki rules, but ...
a lot if this article is concerned with Holbrooke's continuing crusade for recognition of indigenous music in the face of a culture of "only foreign can be good"; maybe Bantock's blistering letter to The Times of 20/04/1920 headed British Music, which is certainly relevant, might be admissible to the discussion? For sure, Jose(ph/f) would have been proud of it!