Talk:John Field (composer)

Page move

Page move news: By going to "What Links Here," I saw that a number of the pages that linked to John Field were trying to link to a supposed article on the 16th century British Puritan. There is no article on the Puritan. Therefore, John Field will now be a disambiguation, with John Field (composer) referring to this fellow and John Field (divine) referring to the Puritan. I went through the linked-by pages and attempted to correct them all. I apologize if I have missed any. Geogre 04:49, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Do we know if Chopin ever heard Field play? It would be an interesting thing to put in, given that most of his fame nowadays comes from having influenced Chopin Kisch 01:25, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Golden Gate

The article mentions that Field was born in Golden gate, Dublin. Couldn't find anything on it. What's that all about? Thanks. Dr. Dan (talk) 08:59, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for posting this query. It seems to be the result of so far undetected subtle vandalism from August 2009! In this revision from 22 July 2009, it read "Field was born in Golden Lane," but after these edits it became Golden gate. It is now fixed. -84user (talk) 13:36, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Great, but is this a neighborhood or a street (lane)? If it's the latter, shouldn't it read "on Golden Lane" rather than "in Golden Lane"? Maybe it's a British vs. American English language issue. Thanks. Dr. Dan (talk) 16:46, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

It appears to be a street. http://www.jstor.org/pss/30100044 has "John Field was born at Golden Lane", http://www.jstor.org/pss/30104278 describes Golden Lane as a "respectable locality", and the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica has "born at Dublin". This bio has "John Field - the son of Robert Field, of Golden Lane, Dublin - was born on July 26, 1782, and was baptized at St. Werburgh's Church on September 30 of the same year." Page 7 of this tourist walking guide describe Golden Lane as crossing Bride Street. "born in" appears more often than "born at" for various British or Irish street names, while "born on" sounds strange to my British ears. Could be a question for the WP:Reference_desk/Language. -84user (talk) 15:39, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Dates

Is it necessary to specify that one date is Julian and the other Gregorian? There is a simple convention used by historians of writing dates 11/23rd of July, or whatever, indicating a twelve-day discrepancy between English and continental. However, Field's birth date was many years after the UK adopted the continental calendar, so why are two dates needed? Is there a problem somewhere with Russian dates (which were not reformed until 1920 or so)?

There is no need to specify two dates. I've changed that, also noting the uncertainty of the exact date of birth (as per Grove Online). --Jashiin (talk) 12:58, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I have improved on the paragraph about the Nocturne, giving a more accurate musical definition of the genre. HenriettaVanLaer (talk) 20:19, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Last Words

Henrietta Van Laer says: I have found three sources on Google books that confirm this anecdote. The following book seems to be the best source, as it is a new and complete biography. The reply Field made needs to be quoted in French as it was a pun:- The life and music of John Field, 1782-1837, creator of the nocturne‎ - Page 97-98 Patrick Piggott - Biography & Autobiography - 1973 - 287 pages

... of his illness Field's death was actually the result of an attack of pneumonia, ... asked him if he would like to have the ministrations of a priest. .[the priest asked him if he was a Catholic, a Protestant or a Calvinist." Field replied with a characteristic pun]

“I am not a Calvinist, but a Claveciniste…” The same anecdote is told in Composers of Yesterday‎ - Page 147 David Ewen - Biography & Autobiography - 2007 - 500 pages

At one time, shortly before his death, a priest engaged him m conversa- lion " Are you a Protestant ?" the priest asked John Field smiled a polite denial "A .....etcHenriettaVanLaer (talk) 21:01, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. I've put in a reference to Piggott's work; that should be enough. --Jashiin (talk) 12:58, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Not in the "ascendancy"

Small point; Field was not in the Protestant Ascendancy, which was the Irish landed gentry and nobility.86.42.223.139 (talk) 20:48, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

the nocturnes - parenthetical numbering?

What is the source, and significance, of the parenthetical numbering of the nocturnes? I see the same situation at Nocturnes (Field), again with no explanation. My question arises because I have a CD of John O'Conor playing "15 Nocturnes" (Telarc 80199), of 18 numbered nocturnes, with the note "Nocturne numbering: Edition Peters". I can list these here for reference (but my sloppy abbreviations will need to be excused):

• I in E-b
• II in c
• IV in A
• V in B-b
• VI in F
• VIII in A
• IX in E-b
• X in e
• XI in E-b
• XII in G
• XIII in d
• XIV in C
• XV in C
• XVI in F
• XVIII Midi in E

These appear to match the numbering not in parentheses. No explanation is given in the booklet notes for the inclusion of the "Midi" as being Nocturne XVIII.

(Hm. This is probably a dangerous question to ask here - I can already guess the response of one music editor who believes that only the most recent scholarship should be noted at Wikipedia, regardless of what users may find in older sources, and be curious about.) Milkunderwood (talk) 06:47, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I have two recordings. Frith and O'Rourke. They are identical except for No. 17. Despite the weird numbering that changes with every source I consulted, there seems to be some confusion about this e major piece (not "Midi", there's another one.). I have no clue if this is H 65 (which is listed as lost here, and listed as not lost elsewhere) or H 54. I checked other recordings at Amazon, and the same piece has different Hopkins numbers. Yay.

If someone knows more, please enlighten me. 93.208.222.62 (talk) 23:12, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

I enlightened myself by consulting Hopkinson's book:

• H. 24 – Nocturne for piano Number. 1 in E-flat Major
• H. 25 – Nocturne for piano Number. 2 in C Minor
• H. 26 – Nocturne for piano Number. 3 in A-flat Major
• H. 36 – Nocturne for piano Number. 4 in A Major
• H. 37 – Nocturne for piano Number. 5 in B-flat Major
• H. 40 – Nocturne for piano Number. 6 in F Major
• H. 45 – Nocturne for piano Number. 7 in C Major
• H. 46 – Nocturne for piano Number. 8 in E Minor
• H. 14E – Nocturne for piano Number. 9 in A Major
• H. 30A – Nocturne for piano Number. 10 in E-flat Major
• H. 56 – Nocturne for piano Number. 11 in E-flat Major
• H. 58D – Nocturne for piano Number. 12 in G Major
• H. 59 – Nocturne for piano Number. 13 in D Minor
• H. 60 – Nocturne for piano Number. 14 in C Major
• H. 61 – Nocturne for piano Number. 15 in C Major
• H. 62 – Nocturne for piano Number. 16 in F Major

Numbering not by Hopkinson but "popular":

• H 54 – Nocturne for piano [No. 17] in E major – (two different versions!)
• H 13K – Nocturne for piano [No. 18] in E major

The problem here is that publishers, editors etc. rebranded other works, for example the romance (H 30), as nocturnes. That left the numbering as inconsistent as it is today. That's why: Don't trust the nocturne numbers in the booklet, editions etc. - trust Hopkinson.

I agree with Milkunderwood to a certain point. But "what users may find in older sources" may very well differ. They might have been curious, but they will be left confused. The "old" numberings always were arbitrary (starting with No. 7), so it doesn't make any sense to use them as a point of reference.

93.208.222.62 (talk) 01:29, 21 January 2019 (UTC)