Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Alan Bush/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 21:42, 10 August 2017 [1].

Alan Bush

edit
Nominator(s): Brianboulton (talk) 14:05, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

After a ten-month gap, and an enforced temporary retirement, I'm returning to FAC with this composer biography. Bush, active through much of the 20th century, was an enigmatic figure who blighted his career by espousing a hardline Marxism. This turned off much of the music establishment, and the public too. Yet his music is often bright and generous, as a few visits to YouTube will quickly demonstrate. If perhaps not quite in the first ranks of modern British composers, he's surely worth an honourable place in the reserves. I'm most grateful to Tim Riley for breaking his retirement with a helpful talkpage review. Brianboulton (talk) 14:05, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt

edit

Good to see you back. A few comments:

  • "cold-shouldered" I'm wondering at the need for informality when "ignored" serves much the same purpose.
  • I might put an "honorary" before "doctorates"
  • "during the First World War," I advise cutting this. It slows the text and I would think few are going to be ignorant given the "Western Front" and 1917 ...
  • "in the Manchester Guardian" I believe a "The" was part of the title.
  • "He was not called up immediately, and meantime continued his musical life," "meantime" seems to be unnecessary.
  • "Oxford Dictionary of National Biography" italics, I think
  • "While in Prague in August 1947, he and the WMA performed his unaccompanied chorus Lidice at the site of the village of that name,[56][57]" as Lidice was not in Prague, I might change Prague to Czechoslovakia.
  • "This change was formalised as Bush responded to the 1948 decree issued by Stalin's director of cultural policy, Andrei Zhdanov, against formalism" I'd change "formalised" to "confirmed" or similar because of the "formalism" later on.
  • "In 1948 Bush accepted a commission from the Nottingham Co-operative Society for a symphony, as part of the city's quincentennial celebrations in 1949." I might lose the comma.
  • "yet following its Nottingham premiere on 27 June 1949 and its London debut on 11 December 1952 under Boult and the London Philharmonic,[59] the work has been rarely heard in Britain." consider "since" for "following". It may be an ENGVAR thing.
  • "The Daily Telegraph's" I believe again, there's a "The" as part of the title. Also should be linked as first usage.
  • "native African" I have an issue with this as regards British Guiana. They were immigrants, if not voluntary ones.
  • "real-life story" I might just say "life". Bush has worked from real life before.
  • "an American union activist and songwriter who was convicted of murder and executed in 1915" I might at least through a "controversially" before convicted.
  • "he produced the first of three late song cycles" "late" got my interest here as I don't recall hearing the phrase before.
  • "His first venture, Wat Tyler, was written in a form which Bush thought acceptable to the general British public;[119] it was not his choice, he wrote, that the opera and its successors all found their initial audiences in East Germany." I would split this at the semicolon.
  • "continued to show all the hallmarks of his postwar oeuvre: vigour, clarity of tone masterful use of counterpoint." Issue in the list.
  • "although there was a memorial concert at the Wigmore Hall on 1 November,[134] and a BBC broadcast of the Piano Concerto on 19 December.[135] Although quietly observed," Although/although.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:37, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the review. Subject to the comments I've inserted above, I've dealt with these points as you suggest. Brianboulton (talk) 13:40, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nicely done, very little to criticise. First class.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:26, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Most grateful. Brianboulton (talk) 08:59, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support – I made such comments as I wanted to make on the article talk page, and the text as it now stands seems to me to meet all the FA criteria. Like all the best Wikipedia articles (or, for that matter, those of any other important encyclopaedia) it makes one interested in someone or something one had hitherto known nothing about. It seems to me that in his return to editing Brian is in his finest form. Bravo! Tim riley talk 19:00, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support This is a joy to read; obviously informed by an authoritative dept of knowledge of the sources and the wider artistic/cultural context, so what follows are nick picky and optional only.

  • and was much involved with workers - "deeply" (or some such) rather than "much"
  • led to more prolonged semi-ostracisation - Spell out the concrete effects of this; "premiered in East Germany" may be opaque for some readers.
  • In his earlier, prewar works - earlier is redundant; also I'd switch tense - "Bush's style retained what commentators describe and an essential Englishness, strongly influenced by.." or whatever
  • Alice Bush had, before her marriage, attended an art school - Tense, punct - 'Alice Bush studied art before her marriage'.
  • I'm not really finding any nitpicks worth mentioning outside from the lead (have made some edits).
  • Source review - Authors used are all first rank. Spot check on online refs from this version - Refs 2, 76 and 118 all support claims. Ceoil (talk) 23:20, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much. I've dealt with the above points more or less as you've requested, although I've kept the mention of Alice's art school. I have also taken the liberty of bolding your "source review" subheading, to draw the coordinators' attention to it if necessary. I am most grateful for your support. Brianboulton (talk) 18:26, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

edit

All images appear to be appropriately licensed and used. I note the following.

  • Consider alt text.
  • File:Lascaux painting.jpg likely requires a license tag for the ancient painting as well as the photograph. Possibly we have a PD-PREHISTORIC.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:38, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the question of alt text, I have long doubted whether this has any real value, and don't normally use it, although if others wish to add it, that's fine. On the other matter, I can't locate any "prehistoric" template. The nearest appears to be PD-Art|PD-old-100, which is used on Commons in a number of ancient artwork photographic images. So I've added that licence to the Lascaux image. Brianboulton (talk) 10:04, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source review from Ealdgyth

edit
  • Sources: I'm a bit concerned that so many citations are to Nancy Bush's book. This strikes me as a bit too close to the subject, quite honestly. I don't have trouble with using such sources occasionally, but its being used for some opinion also (see in "1930s: emergent composer" section where it references "In April a BBC broadcast performance of his Dance Overture for Military Band, Op. 12a, received a mixed reception." and then some reactions from the audience. Another concern is the Foreman source is part of the Nancy Bush work. And we're using the Alan Bush Music Trust's website. AND we have a "tribute" to Alan Bush on his 50th birthday. How are all these works really independent of the subject?
  • There's always a bit of a problem when the only detailed biography of a subject is by a family member. However, most of the citations to Nancy's book relate to mundane, non-controversial facts and dates. In the "opinion" example that you give, the two quotations are not from Nancy herself; she is quoting listeners' comments from the Radio Times, 8 May 1931. I'll alter the text to make this clear.
  • Foreman is a distinguished music critic and historian. His account, though published as part of the biographical account, is quite a separate entity, written much later when both Bushes were dead; it is not part of a collaborative venture.
  • Many of the citations to the Alan Bush Music Trust website are routine confirmations of dates of composition, performance or recordings. The website also republishes articles that were originally published elsewhere, and quotes from reviews that appeared in notable newspapers and journals - these are all noted in the citations, so it should be clear when it's not the opinions of the trust that are being quoted.
  • The tribute book was issued by the Worker's Music Association. Of the couple of quotes taken from the book, one merely confirms that Bush and Ireland had a longstanding friendship, the other, from Murrill, is perhaps what you'd expect to find in a Legacy section, and I'd be reluctant to lose it. Brianboulton (talk) 13:18, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think this is something that other reviewers need to think on and take into account. I am not familiar with the prose nor with the subject of modern composers, so I can't judge easily whether this is a problem of lack of sources or if it's something deeper. I do have concerns about using a family member's biography as a main source ... even if only to source facts. And I think it would be helpful for other reviewers to weigh in on this - not just expect a "specialized reviewer" to shoulder the weight on this. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:42, 6 August 2017 (UTC}
  • Two penn'orth from me as another serial submitter to FAC of classical music Life and Works articles. Two previous composer FAs spring to mind where close relations are used as major sources: for Gustav Holst we used Imogen Holst, and for Ralph Vaughan Williams we used Ursula Vaughan Williams. As both women were, and are, recognised authorities on their relation's life and works it would be perverse not to use them. Truth to tell, if one tried to eschew direct reference to their books one would end up quoting them at second hand via musicologists and other writers who draw heavily on them. Eric Fenby was not a blood relative of Frederick Delius but was as close as any son, and he too is – in my view rightly and inevitably – relied on as a key source – many would say the key source – for that composer's featured article. In short, not only do I think it proper to use Nancy Bush as a major source, I think it would be negligent not to do so. That the present article uses Nancy only for factual material rather than qualitative assessment only strengthens the case for citing her substantially. Turning to the status of Lewis Foreman, also queried above, I would add that he is a major contributor to Grove and the other Oxford music reference suite, on composers including Arnold Bax, Frank Bridge, Percy Grainger and others. – Tim riley talk 20:52, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd consider (as a trained historian) that Nancy's account was a primary source, not a secondary source. What's her training in history, or biography? As an encyclopedia we are meant to use primary sources "at second hand via musicologists and other writers" - that's what we do - we summarize the secondary sources, and it's hard to argue that the wife of the subject is a secondary source about the subject. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:03, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would think it depends on the work itself, (and perhaps on the sources NB has used to put it together). I see in this search that her work has been used by several heavyweights as a source, although I do not know what information they have used, or to what extent.
  • Alan Bush: A Source Book by Professor Stewart R Craggs
  • Alan Bush, Modern Music, and the Cold War: The Cultural Left in Britain and the Communist Bloc by Joanna Bullivant;
  • Historical Dictionary of English Music: ca. 1400-1958 by Charles Edward McGuire & ‎Steven E. Plank
  • Only in the Common People: The Aesthetics of Class in Post-War Britain by Paul Long
  • A pleasant change from politics: music and the British Labour party by Duncan Hall
  • The New Penguin Opera Guide by Amanda Holden
among many others. - SchroCat (talk) 21:41, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I would expect historians/biographers/musicologists to use her work, as it's a primary source for his life. That's not the issue. We are NOT historians/biographers/musicologists who are doing research to write histories/biographies/etc. We are encyclopedia writers who use the works that historians/biographers/musicologists write. We take those secondary accounts and summarize them. We should NOT be using primary sources much, if at all. THAT is my concern. I'm not saying whether or not Nancy's work is reliable - that's what the historians/biographers/musicologists are for - they are the people that evaluate the primary sources. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:55, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not sure we should be so prescriptive on this. WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD is a good thing to read, particularly when dealing with a composer from a modern niche area of classical music where the sources are so,much rarer than general history or politics, etc. – SchroCat (talk) 22:06, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm seeing this work listed above ... the table of contents and what I can see shows a lot of biographical information - perhaps this should be relied on more than a primary source? And ... I don't have a problem with using some primary sources - but personally, I think we're verging on too much. I'm not to the point of opposing, but it's not helping that my concerns are being dismissed or not understood. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:23, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ealdgyth, I do not think anyone is dismissing or misunderstanding your concerns (and you did ask for other reviewers to comment on this point). We are talking about what are small differences of weighting regarding the sources, that is all. Again, when the sources are so thin on the ground, it behaves us to use all we can, particularly a secondary source such as this. (I do question slightly the 'primary' classification here, although I have not seen a copy of the work, and cannot judge the sources she has used. Have you seen the sources for the work?) - SchroCat (talk) 22:42, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Adding: Lewis Foreman is a musicologist, and an Honorary Senior Research Fellow at the University of Birmingham. As his section in the Bush book is separate, this should be acceptable. - SchroCat (talk) 22:55, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I find it very hard to believe that the widow/wife of the subject can be considered a secondary source, no matter what sources she used. It is not nearly enough separation from the subject. It is only a small step from an autobiography. Would we trust Hilary Clinton to be a source for large chunks of an encyclopedia entry for Bill Clinton? It appears there IS a biography/history that is just released ... has that been consulted? Using that would resolve the problem of relying on source this close to the subject. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:51, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm certainly not dismissing your concerns, Ealdgyth - they are matters of proper concern, and I intend to contribute further to this discussion. However, this will have to wait for at least 24 hours, because a) it's long past my bedtime now, and b} I have a day of pleasure ahead tomorrow that will keep me well away from my laptop. Briefly, having looked at all 34 citations to Nancy's biography, I feel that at least half of them can be cited to other sources – and that's before I've been able to look at the newly-released biography/history that you mention. Much thanks to Tim and SchroCat for your contributions, but can I suggest a brief pause in this discussion, until I'm able to report back? Brianboulton (talk) 23:38, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK, in the light of the above discussion I've replaced most of the citations to Nancy's book by finding other sources. In a few cases, where the information was unimportant, I've deleted the text. I hope there's not too much left to argue about.
I've also been looking at the Bullivant book. It is not a biography, although it contains some biographical details; Bullivant refers her readers to Nancy's memoir for useful biographical details. Her own book is an intensely academic study, basically a re-examination of the relationship between Bush's music and his political views, taking into account documents that have recently become available. It is quite heavy going, and of limited use in the preparation of a general encyclopaedia article. But I've added the book to the sources, and made a few citations to it. Brianboulton (talk) 18:42, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Much better and less worrisome now. THank you. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:49, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Paraphrasing: I randomly googled three sentences and nothing showed up except mirrors. Earwig's tool shows a couple of spots where the prose could be tweaked a bit to avoid people screaming about too close paraphrasing. It's not a real issue, but better to be safe than sorry. (Some of the flags are for quotes, but others are not)
  • Could you indicate the "couple of spots" where you think attention is required? Sometimes it's very difficult to rephrase basic information (date and place of birth, lists of awards, etc).
  • "From the age of eleven he attended" could probably be reworded to "From the time he was eleven"; "adviser, a post he held until the body" could probably be "adviser, holding the job until the body"; "In 1929 he resigned from" could be "He resigned in 1929 from.."; "Khatchaturian's Piano Concerto with Moura Lympany as soloist" could be "Khatchaturian's Piano Concerto with soloist Moura Lympany"; "helped to found the Workers' Musical Association" could be "was one of the founders of the". They aren't big changes, but will help keep people from whining too much. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:02, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise everything looks good. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:15, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dank

edit

Comments from SchroCat

edit

To come. I'll add a comment on the N Bush source too, in the light of Ealdgyth's comment above. It's a genuine point that needs looking at closely and careful consideration - I have had to face the same problem before. - SchroCat (talk) 19:40, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support, per my review "disclaimer" here. Only one comment, and a minor one at that: in the "Music and politics" section you say Bush "joined the Communist Party". Perhaps 'British CP' or the full name for the CBGB may be slightly better, as he was moving back and forth to Germany at the time. Your decision and I do not press the point. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 10:48, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fsir point, and adjusted as you suggest. Thanks for your support. Brianboulton (talk) 18:44, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Johnbod

edit
  • Support Not really my area, & I don't know I've ever heard a note of Bush. A few nit-picks:
  • The only phrase that jangled was the "his forte" in "In the 1920s it appeared that Bush might emerge as Britain's foremost pianist, after his studies under the leading teachers of the day, but he turned to composition as his forte". Just "concentrated on" or something?
  • When did he actually stop performing professionally as soloist of piano pieces by others? Roughly. Are there any such recordings?
  • The last instance I can find of Bush acting professionally as a pianist in a work by another composer is in 1944, when he played the piano part in the British premiere of Shostakovich's Piano Quintet. I've added this little snippet to the article. I'm not aware of any recordings of him in this role.
  • I note Ealdgth's comments on sources, but I imagine there is just far less on Bush than most composers of the period. He remains obscure, the article averaging 11 views pd over 2 years. There might be usable sources in German - would Gerda be able to help? Did the West Berlin press review the DDR operas?
  • I don't think such reviews would add much to this article; were articles on the individual works to be attempted, then these would be useful sources, but I don't see them having great value here. Brianboulton (talk) 19:02, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Great to see you back, Brian! Johnbod (talk) 02:12, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your review, your support, and your good wishes. Brianboulton (talk) 19:02, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Alan_Bush/archive1&oldid=1138454075"