Archives

February 2023

Walton

Delighted to see your comment about Walton's symphonies on the Mahler talk page. My mentor on Wikipedia, the late Brian Boulton, was responsible for taking the Mahler article to Featured Article status, and with BB's benevolent eye on me I did the same for Walton's. He is a composer who means a great deal to me. I had the luck to be at LSO concerts conducted by Previn and later by Colin Davis at which the First Symphony made an unforgettable impression on me. I'm very fond of the Second, though I agree with the critic who said it was as much a divertimento as a symphony.

I hope you will continue to contribute to Wikipedia. Best wishes, Tim riley talk 10:49, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I shall look into the Walton article, congratulations. Two Australian symphonies for you, influenced by Walton, especially No. 2 (in both cases): [1] [2] Walton22 (talk) 11:05, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Some good things in those two works. I'm grateful to you for telling me about them. Tim riley talk 12:36, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tim riley I really enjoyed the indeed very fine article William Walton which you had such a hand in taking to Featured Article status.

Without wishing to impute WP:OWN to you in any way, I hope the Wikipedia community would not consider it inappropriate that I get your opinion here on a possible edit to the article I considered doing.

It is simply to have a footnote link to this YouTube which is the audio of the Walton 70th birthday concert at Royal Festival Hall. I was thinking it could go in the point in the article that this very concert is mentioned. The audio begins with the introductory speech that André Previn gave, so aside from the music itself it seems it is a terrific resource that perhaps deserves citing?

Previn also conducted an 80th birthday gala concert for Walton at Festival Hall in 1982, with the composer present not long before his death, and which the article unfortunately doesn't mention. YouTube has actual video of this.

As a far more experienced editor than me, what do you think of these edit ideas? Walton22 (talk) 00:28, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The YouTube clips are excellent, but I am far from sure that linking to them would be in compliance with Wikipedia's rules. We are not supposed to link to YouTube clips that are not clearly posted by or with the consent of the copyright holders. Neither clip appears to be have public domain copyright status; the 70th birthday one seems at least to be owned and posted by LSO Live, so might be OK to link to, but the 80th birthday one seems to have been posted by someone with no particular claim to hold the rights. I'll make further enquiries about the 70th birthday clip, and add a link to it if it appears legitimate to do so. But you're absolutely right about mentioning the 80th birthday concert in our text. There is touching coverage in Kennedy's biography:

The audience's reception for Belshazzar moved Walton to tears – and there were tears, too, in the eyes of those who saw the frail, white-haired, gaunt-faced old man and remembered the debonair figure of the 'white hope of English music' when it seemed he would never grow old.

I'll boil that down and add the result. Thank you very much for the excellent suggestion. I can't think why I wasn't at the 80th birthday concert. I certainly was in the audience – as was the composer (in the stalls, not in the royal box on that occasion) – for a performance of Belshazzar's Feast conducted by Previn at the Festival Hall in 1976. It was magnificent. Tim riley talk 12:36, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tim riley, I thought there may be an issue with the YouTube status, and I think you'll find 'LSO Live' is not affiliated with the LSO. But I'm very glad you will add mention of the 80th birthday concert to the 'Last years' section. That is a touching quote from Kennedy and evokes so much. I'm sure you've seen the Tony Palmer documentary At the End of the Haunted Day Walton22 (talk) 20:28, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tim riley, I have another suggestion for the Walton article: change section header Music>Chamber works to "Chamber and solo works" facilitating adding something about the Five Bagatelles for solo guitar, written for Julian Bream. This is an important work and a favourite in the guitar world. Along with the string quartet, this would show some further counterbalance within an overall oeuvre which is certainly otherwise dominated by works for larger forces.Walton22 (talk) 23:21, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That looks good to me. I suggest you go ahead and make the changes you suggest. (Between ourselves, I don't rate WW's chamber works all that highly, any more than I can honestly enthuse about Elgar's three big chamber works from after WWI, but my views are neither here nor there.) Tim riley talk 22:01, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there aren't many chamber works to rate! But two I would aver are masterpieces are indeed the Five Bagatelles and the String Quartet in A minor/Sonata for strings. Also, I think it is worth adding to the note about the latter that Malcolm Arnold was involved in the transcription. I cited that particular example in the lede of Orchestration as one of two exceptions I put forward that "prove the rule" that classical composers do their own orchestration. I'll make those edits to the WW article. Tidy up if I am clumsy in any way. Walton22 (talk) 22:23, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tim riley, please have a look at my edits to section William_Walton#Chamber_and_solo_works (amended section title as discussed). Hope they are ok; of course amend as necessary. Walton22 (talk) 02:18, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Good additions. Minor tweaks. (Please indulge my old-fashioned aversion to the anarthrous nominal premodifier: it is one of many Americanisms that will inevitably overwhelm the King's English, but I fight a rearguard action as vigorously as a septuagenarian can manage). Tim riley talk 15:57, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tim riley, I'm glad you found the content pertinent, and I loved being made aware of the false title issue.

I worked only on the section at hand without reference to the rest, which was a mistake that led to the overlinking and superfluous instances of full name/occupation. The only factoid that stealthily escaped, I presume intentionally, was that it was Marriner who asked WW to make the string section arrangement of the quartet. I assume you feel this is too minor a fact in a modest-length article and if so accept that.

A pleasure and honour to work with you. Walton22 (talk) 17:46, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tim riley, some terrific Walton in the excellent coronation music! Worth writing up for the WP article, mirroring the content about the 1953 coronation? Walton22 (talk) 12:22, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Probably not, I think. True, WW was well represented today, but so were Elgar and RVW, with more than one work apiece, and truth to tell Handel and Parry were, as ever, the star composers for a coronation. (I saw the 1953 one on my grandparents' television but as I was aged seventeen months I don't remember anything of it.) Odd choice, I thought, to have Boyce's setting of The King Shall Rejoice today, rather than Handel's knock-out setting. As to WW, I think the omission of Orb and Sceptre reflects my own view that it isn't a patch on Crown Imperial, although curiously no-one from the Royal Household or Westminster Abbey invited my opinion on the matter. Delighted to hear from you about WW again! Tim riley talk 14:23, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I thought a couple of lines in the "Legacy" section. I am always so pleased to see WW so deservedly still in circulation, so perhaps that makes me not NPOV. He would have been thrilled to be represented at the next Coronation of course, but that is even more not NPOV. Perhaps I may try it, and won't mind at all if you revert or edit me. The Te Deum was also used in 1953 I see. Interesting the credits to John Rutter as arranger. Obviously the orchestra in the Abbey was not full size so I assume this is why a mediator was needed, for instrumental forces reasons. Walton22 (talk) 19:55, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tim riley, thanks for fixing my edit. I'm glad the rest could stand. Actually, I should have stayed with the previous edit I made. I introduced the "editorialising" bit on the rebound to try (too hard) to fit it to the "Legacy" heading. I told myself that something that was witnessed by maybe a billion people is self-evidently and objectively a boost to the legacy, so not an editorial, but the style is subjective even if the substance isn't. You're quite right to rev that bit of course. Walton22 (talk) 06:56, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:39, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]