Talk:John Ogdon

Untitled

some corrections- eliminated the comments about the "coarse" qualities of his Scriabin recordings- purely a subjective judgement that isn't shared by many professionals and performers. Also, his EMI Rachmaninoff recordings have been released, they make no atttempt at completeness, despite the claims of the author of the article.

If this is correct, we will need to amend the article. Can anybody confirm either way? JackofOz 14:12, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Although Ogdon recorded Rachmaninov extensively, I don't think he came to cover the complete oeuvre. To my knowledge, Ogdon recorded the complete preludes and études-tableaux, the three nocturnes, the Corelli Variations, the two sonatas and the first two piano concertos. MUSIKVEREIN 10:50, 22 August, 2007 —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 14:56, August 22, 2007 (UTC).

Image

Would a cropped version of the image, showing just Ogdon, be more appropriate? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:11, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes it would. The result would be a cropped version of the current JPEG, but the current JPEG appears to be a composite of three separate things: an inscribed photograph and two notes of thanks. Removing the latter wouldn't crop what was originally complete in itself. (Additionally, the notes of thanks are a little difficult to decipher and once deciphered seem of only minor biographical interest.) ¶ As for the copyright status of the image, I've just now removed the suggestion that it should go to Commons; ShakespeareFan00, who made the suggestion, may wish to comment. -- Hoary (talk) 23:59, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

If it's copyright was proved, then obviously it can't be moved to Commons, Thanks. Updated the license to {{Non-free biog-pic}} as a Non-free use rationale was provided. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 07:17, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

ShakespeareFan00, the first sentence of your comment puzzles me. Don't we start by assuming that any photograph from 1968 (or thereabouts) is copyright -- conventionally copyright, often described as having "all rights reserved", and not covered by any usable copyleft license -- and thus ineligible for transfer to Commons? The onus is on the would-be transferer to demonstrate that no, it is in the public domain (or is usably copyleft). If I'm wrong, please correct me, because I think I need to understand this stuff. -- Hoary (talk) 07:58, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Absolutely. I agree with your analysis. Sometimes though images can get (wrongly) get tagged because various information wasn't clear when tagged. If you find images wrongly tagged, feel free to update. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:00, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Done. (In doing this, I've reverted the work of DatBot; but I think and hope that DatBot would be satisfied all the same. Any comment, DatGuy?) -- Hoary (talk) 22:37, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

@Hoary: Yeah I don't mind. Don't forget to remove the tag added with this edit though [1]. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 17:50, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Dat Guy. I'll do it on 29 April, if I remember. -- Hoary (talk) 12:35, 24 April 2018 (UTC)