Wikipedia

Talk:Benjamin Britten/Archive 2

< Talk:Benjamin Britten
Latest comment: 2 years ago by 197.237.216.64 in topic his contemporaries
Archive 1Archive 2

Britten's cause of death

Latest comment: 10 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion

The following exchange is copied from User talk:Tim riley, as I think it may be helpful to future editors to have it available here. Tim riley talk 18:25, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

This is an interesting read. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 10:55, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much for that, Jack. That article is weighty enough, and its author evidently authoritative enough, to make me think that in the interests of balance I should add a sentence on this to the section. What think you? Tim riley talk 16:19, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Blimey. DBaK (talk) 17:26, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Hi there. Tim's invited me to weigh in with my thoughts here. I can't claim medical expertise, though I do rather think it's curious that Peter Pears - whom Kildea suggests infected Britten in the first place (assuming that Britten *was* infected with syphilis) - never showed any symptoms of the disease. Maybe that proves nothing. But I can't help noticing that the New Statesman article is written by Hywel Davies, the source of Kildea's story that Britten had syphilis: against Hywel Davies's second-hand account we have the testimony of Michael Petch, the cardiologist who took care of Britten both during and after the operation, and furthermore re-examined the medical notes before making his statement; plus there's the testimony of Beng Goh, who - to quote this article from The Guardian - is "a consultant physician and expert in syphilis, [who] has examined the medical records and has separately concluded that Britten was 'unlikely' to have been suffering from cardiovascular syphilis." Here's more from Goh in the article:
According to Goh, the tissue samples taken from the composer's aortic valve, and written up in the medical notes, crucially revealed no evidence of syphilis. "To diagnose syphilitic aortic valvular disease, there should be evidence of vasculitis – inflammation of blood vessels," said Goh. No such inflammation was reported.
In addition, said Goh, the notes reveal "there no other clinical features ... that would suggest syphilis as a possibility". For example, said Goh, in such a case one would expect to see calcium deposits on the aorta – "but this was not present in the chest x-ray".
Goh also cast doubt on the notion aired in the biography that in 1940 a bout of streptococcal tonsilitis that left him sweating and hallucinating was "his body in fact reacting to syphilis, now in its secondary stage". According to Goh: "Sweating and hallucination are most unlikely to be symptoms of secondary syphilis."
It's quite clear, even from this, that Kildea has made quite a deal out of Britten's supposed infection in his biography. I would be very wary indeed of taking Kildea as in any way authoritative on this matter, and the fact the only medical opinion weighing in his favour is the (as I said, second-hand) source of his story does nothing to make me feel more confident in it. Alfietucker (talk) 17:53, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you to Jack and Alfie for this. All things considered I am now minded to leave the section as it is, unless anyone has views to the contrary. Tim riley talk 18:31, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

To his credit, Kildea does acknowledge "Petch was never told of the syphilis and today is sceptical of the diagnosis, believing that the tests for endocarditis Britten underwent in 1968 should have revealed any infection" (p. 537). -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 21:57, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Britten 100

Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

As the centenary twelvemonth approaches its end it seems to me that the Britten 100 section could now do with considerable pruning. I have in mind blitzing the section entirely and adding a single para to the Honours, awards and commemorations section, summarising the contents of the present Britten 100 section. I'd be grateful to know what other editors think, and am taking the liberty of pinging @Brianboulton:, @Alfietucker:, @Martinevans123:, @JackofOz: and @Sjones23: with that in mind. Comments from anyone else will of course be just as welcome. No rush: there's more than a month till the end of the official Britten 100 celebrations. Tim riley talk 16:55, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I think this is an excellent idea, and you should do as you suggest, Tim. I'm happy to leave this chore to you, in your role as Ben's vicar on earth. Brianboulton (talk) 18:23, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Done. Pruned from 430 to 230 words. Tweaking ad lib cordially invited. Tim riley talk 11:10, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Britten's presumed 'attraction to boys'

Latest comment: 9 years ago8 comments4 people in discussion

This subject has been discussed before. The discussion has now been archived. Yet I feel that the discussion did not lead up to a proper conclusion, and that so far, proper conclusions have not been applied to the lemma.

The 'Boys' section of the 'Controversies' now starts with the blunt sentence 'Britten was attracted to young boys – what Auden called "thin-as-a-board juveniles – sexless and innocent", with a reference to Matthews, page 95. First off, this reference is dead wrong. On page 95 of Matthews, there is no such text. Second, even if we find that reference somewhere in Matthews, it does not warrant the first, factual statement that 'Britten was attracted to young boys'. Thirdly, we don't want the lemma to be vague on this subject, while 'being attracted to' is vague. As a secondary teacher, I am 'attracted to' working with pupils aged 12-18. Actually, I love it. But I am not in the least *sexually* attracted. I would sue anyone who insults me by publicly stating that I am 'attracted to young girls aged 12-18' because they would misappropriate the in itself vague meaning of 'to be attracted to' certain people. Vagueness and innuendo is not what we need in a dictionary.

Sure, I am open to any convincing proof that Britten actually was *sexually* attracted to young boys. It has been often suggested, or implied, or stated. Britten has been posthumously accused, or excused. But never have I found any proof of the presumed matter. Yes, we are quite sure that he was *socially* attracted to working with young people, including young boys, and often received praise for the way in which he worked with them. From his work, we can deduce that Britten was 'attracted to' the subject of youth, of innocence lost, of boys and their relationship to adults and adulthood. And yes, eroticism and its problems also somehow pervade part of Britten's output. But I see no factual ground to arrive at the factual conclusion that Britten himself was *sexually attracted to young boys'. Thus I would like the lemma to be changed so that this suggestion is removed.Mcouzijn (talk) 08:24, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Mcouzijn: which edition of the Matthews book are you referring to? I don't have either, but I see in Google books the earlier 2003 edition has at least two appearances of the Auden quote. Alfietucker (talk) 18:17, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
I've had another look at Bridcut's Britten's Children, and have amplified/clarified this section accordingly. Hope it makes sense now. Alfietucker (talk) 16:41, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Many thanks to Alfie for that. It doesn't disrupt the general thrust, is impeccably sourced, reads smoothly and seems to me utterly NPOV. A tightrope skilfully walked. Tim riley talk 16:58, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Thank you - glad it worked. Alfietucker (talk) 18:03, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

I am concerned about this statement: "Some commentators have continued to question Britten's conduct, sometimes very sharply". While that assertion may be true (I have no idea), I don't think is supported by the referenced article, which is Martin Kettle's article "Why we must talk about Britten's boys" at http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/nov/21/britten-boys-obsession-cannot-ignore . The Kettle article (despite its subhead) is about why the topic of pedophilia should not ever be swept under the rug, and also states that "The last thing [Britten's] music needs is to be subverted by a pointless denial of his complex sexuality."

But it does not sharply question Britten's conduct. It reports that some other people have done so, and that there is no evidence of any bad conduct: "no evidence has come to light that Britten assaulted any boys, [...] the ground has been very extensively gone over, [...] many of the boys to whom Britten was close – and some of the parents who knew something of the composer's ways – remained friendly and respectful to Britten. [However, t]hat is not a watertight defence." The writer concludes that "[S]exual attraction and guilt mattered [in his music and his life.] They were some of the most important aspects of this great composer's creative life. It's very uncomfortable stuff, even today. But it can't be denied or ignored." This seems far from "sharply questioning his conduct" -- it seems more like "accepting the complexity of his feelings". Can anybody rewrite the line, or (if others continue to sharply question his conduct) add other references at least?David Couch (talk) 05:36, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

I gave it a try myself. Added "citation needed" to statement that "Some commentators have continued to question Britten's conduct, sometimes very sharply". Also added a sentence summarizing the POV of the referenced article by Mr. Kettle's. BUT -- I am not sure his opinion is important enough to include in the article. Is he an important cultural commentator? I've never heard of the fellow before reading the referenced Wikipedia article (I do happen to think he makes some excellent points, but that's neither here nor there).David Couch (talk) 05:57, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Dealt with. Tim riley talk 07:31, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Rheumatic fever?

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

If Heart & Stroke Canada doesn't say anything about Britten possibly having rheumatic fever, and if there are no other sources, why should this be in the article? —C.Fred (talk) 04:47, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

I removed it again. The entire section was original research anyways. --Majora (talk) 05:04, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Hidden comments

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The problem with hidden comments along the lines of "Don't add an infobox because a WikiProject doesn't like them" is that it has a chilling effect on editors who don't understand that Wikiprojects have no standing to demand that an infobox may not be added. The decision on having an infobox or not is a matter for consensus on each article, and that is policy. If there has already been a discussion on a particular article, and a consensus reached not to have an infobox, then it is helpful to have an html comment drawing the editor's attention to that (possibly archived) discussion, and I'd be very much in favour of maintaining such notes. It is not acceptable to have a note which effectively prevents any consensus from being discussed, as if the matter were already settled by fiat of a single editor or Wikiproject. We build this encyclopedia by allowing people to edit, not forbidding it for no good reason. --RexxS (talk) 19:28, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

First we were told that failure to have a hidden comment made it hard for editors to know not to add an infobox. Now you say that the hidden comment has a "chilling effect." The fact is that you just want to have a pile of code at the top of every article containing redundant infobox information, even in these arts biographies, usually riddled with errors and always emphasizing unimportant factoids at the expense key information. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:51, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Benjamin Britten. 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}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:02, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Benjamin Britten. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:00, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Benjamin Britten. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:38, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Benjamin Britten. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:12, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

What happened to the previous correspondence?

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The history of this page is in and of itself important. I wrote a complaint on it, and although a major edit has resulted, that archive has been destroyed.

To suggest that the means justified the ends "He did not want to hurt anyone, but the task in hand was more important than anything or anybody." is immoral, and yet more of the self-justificatory cover-up I've been protesting about. Having to fight off one of that circle of monsters myself - for I was at the tail end of that circle of boys from Alleyn's School which is the common ground between Hemmings and Crawford and myself, this is my own, personal testimony in the matter - as a boy in the 1960s left my own moral compass twisted and damaged, I have lived a life in distrust of relationships as a result. He and his might not have meant to hurt - but hurt he did. So please stop trying to excuse him, he did a lot of harm and ultimately was unworthy of ennoblement. That came at the hands of another man of kindred spirit, Sir Edward Heath, whose friendship as a musician with Britten was well known. That period of ennoblement was also marked by Harold Wilson's "Lavender Letters" period, when eminence seemed to be at the behest of Lady Falkender: the entire thing came to a head son afterwards, and elevation to the Peerage is now vetted by a Governmental Committee headed by another Alleyn Old Boy, Lord Kakkar.

So why was the previous correspondence here deleted? Because it's embarassing? Naked truth often offends, but the offence lay in the subject, not the exposure of it. Britten was an embarrasment, and it ill=behoves WP to cover it up, it betrays a lack of NPOV. Perhaps our mores have shifted to become more permissive, which is no bad thing, yet what was illegal at the time was illegal. There's no getting away from it. ell the truth, objectively, please, WP, and stop the cover up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.123.173.109 (talk) 05:32, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

How about an "In Popular Culture" section? There were many more or less affectionate Britten parodies in the fifties and sixties; Dudley Moore (Beyond the Fringe) and Flanders & Swann come to mind. Also a fairly significant reference in one of Edmund Crispin's novels—Crispin was a composer himself as his alter ego Bruce Montgomery. Given how prominent Britten was in this period, maybe there's even a film reference!? Will put this page on my watchlist & come back to it, but please, jump in, if you have good sources. --D Anthony Patriarche (talk) 05:52, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Britten's Title

Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Is there a reason not to refer to him as "Lord Benjamin Britten..." in the first line? ViolaPlayer (talk) 06:54, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes. Peers are referred to as Lord Surname, not Lord Given_Name Surname. So he would be Lord Britten id referred to in that way. Better to ensure that readers are given his full name in the lede.--Phil Holmes (talk) 10:28, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

He would be Lord Benjamin Britten only if his father had been a marquess or a duke. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C4:5602:2301:6022:E1B1:925B:89EA (talk) 20:39, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

UK, not England

Latest comment: 4 years ago9 comments6 people in discussion

Like many other pages on Wikipedia, this one perpetuates the false idea that "England" is synonymous with "United Kingdom". I think it's very important to ensure that readers are not led into this error by an article's use of the term. Britten did not leave England, he left the country. People who claim "It's obvious what is meant" are ignoring the fact that this encyclopedia is intended for everyone's use, not just people who happen to know the difference between England and Britain. Deb (talk) 11:19, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

When I attempted to make what I believe to be an uncontroversial correction, User:Gerda Arendt reverted it, and justifies this by saying "The main authors of that (featured) article said English, and one is dead, so can not explain any more." This is completely irrelevant, since editors are encouraged to make improvements to articles regardless of whether the person who first wrote the article wanted it that way or whether the article has been featured.

Aza24 feels that saying he "left the UK" is unnecessary, and I agree. Likewise the statements that he "left England" and "returned to England" are unnecessary and misleading. More boats and planes travel to England than to other parts of the UK but that doesn't mean he wouldn't have taken one that landed in Edinburgh or Cardiff if that had been what was available. Saying he "loved England" is valid. Saying that he "left England" simply perpetuates a common misconception. Deb (talk) 08:58, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

I understand your point and concerns. I will just say that, as you surely are aware, Wikipedia is based on what reliable sources say and its purpose is not to mend the evils of history (see also WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS). For what it's worth, similar things could be said about "Czech" composers who were born and lived in Czechoslovakia, etc. Toccata quarta (talk) 10:12, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
Britten was English, concerned himself with English matters. There is no potential for confusion in the article's wording, as your contrived example might suggest. Further, he ought to moved from Category:British conscientious objectors to Category:English conscientious objectors. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:29, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
This last comment is simply nonsensical. By all means put him under English conscientious objectors. I'm not talking about his nationality, I'm talking about the country he lived in. The comment that he "concerned himself with English matters" is not correct either. Like most people, he concerned himself with national and international matters and didn't limit himself to England's tiny concerns. Deb (talk) 11:17, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
"England's tiny concerns?" Then what are the concerns of Wales? Utterly, totally, completely irrelevant, especially when those concerns are an English composer, born in England. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:c7f:7297:8600:f5df:fdf1:d7c5:b159 (talk) 03:38, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
I agree with Deb. Had he gone to Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland, it would be quite accurate to say he "left England". But had he gone overseas (other than to NI), then he left England by default, but only because he left the entire United Kingdom. We could say "he left Britain", which conveys the same sense as "he left the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland". Similarly, "Stalin left Russia" could mean he went to some foreign country outside the Soviet Union, or it could mean he went to Ukraine, Byelorussia, Georgia, Kazakhstan ...... -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 04:33, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
I'm talking about the country he lived in. – England is a country, where Britten lived, and which he left and returned to. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 07:12, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
As an Englishman living in Scotland, this is a complicated issue - in Britain, we now talk of the four "nations", as "country" is too odd. I call myself British. My English friends do not understand how odd it sounds to conflate England/Britain/UK. In Britten's time that conflation was normal and I am sure he would call himself English. But in the sense of a territory with an independent government, England does not qualify, internationally, as a country. Scotland soon might, once again. Northern Ireland may well unite with the republic.Wales is a principality.Sebmelmoth (talk) 12:44, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Britten Award

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

What happened to the Britten Award for composition? Has it been retitled, or merged with another award? – Reidgreg (talk) 15:56, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Looks as if it was always the Britten Sinfonia Award, now called OPUS, not obviously a memorial to BB. [1] Sebmelmoth (talk) 15:12, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://brittensinfonia.com/creative-learning/opus/

wedding

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

It is impossible to be married in 1901 and born in 1913 85.62.46.174 (talk) 01:51, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

It is however possible to be born in 1913 to parents who married in 1901. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:54, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

his contemporaries

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

His contemporaries 197.237.216.64 (talk) 18:01, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Benjamin_Britten/Archive_2&oldid=1248244117"