Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Michael Tippett/archive1

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 Ian Rose 10:02, 11 November 2013 (UTC) [1].

---

Michael Tippett

Michael Tippett (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Featured article candidates/Michael Tippett/archive1

Nominator(s): Brianboulton (talk) 18:56, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Michael Tippett was, in his lifetime, often ranked alongside Benjamin Britten as one of Britain's leading 20th century composers. Britten has retained his high standing, while Tippett's has fallen somewhat precipitously. Less naturally gifted than Britten, Tippett took a long time getting established; after finally achieving recognition he changed his style more than once, with limited success. While a few of his works remain popular—the oratorio A Child of our Time outstandingly so—much of his music has disappeared from the repertory. His loyal admirers believe his time will come again; whether that be so, he led a long and interesting life as a composer, conductor and musical theorist, and remains an important if enigmatic figure in English music. Thanks are due to User:Andrew Lowe Watson for the initial spadework from which this article is derived. Brianboulton (talk) 18:56, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Support

I had my say at peer review, and such minor quibbles as I had were properly dealt with there. Just two minor points now:

• Lead
  • Postnominal gongs – no strong objection to their being in small type, but I don't think it's usual

• • I copied this format from the superb Edward Elgar article, and I thought it looked rather good! Each to its own, of course. Brianboulton (talk) 10:22, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

• General characterics – plainly a typo in the header, but not sure if you mean characteristics or character; I think I'd go for the latter, but over to you to decide.

• Evidence of my indecision. I have gone for the latter - thanks. Brianboulton (talk) 10:22, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

That's my lot. Clearly an article that meets the FAC criteria. Very pleased indeed to add my support for its promotion. – Tim riley (talk) 19:34, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your peer review help and for your support here. Brianboulton (talk) 10:22, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Support I also had my say at the peer review. Well done as always.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:02, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Image check All images acceptably licensed. One fair use image used for the identification of the subject with an acceptable fair use rationale.

Thanks for support and image check (I assume that the image check is yours?) Brianboulton (talk) 14:49, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

• Support – with a few comments.

• "Although neither she nor Henry was musical.." -- I want to say, "Although neither she nor Henry were musical..."
  • According to Fowler: "... after neither...nor. If both subjects are singular & in the third person, ... the verb must be singular & not plural." --Stfg (talk) 21:27, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
    • What a curious language we have, thanks! -- Cassianto^Talk 21:53, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
• We link Cornwall, Suffolk and Kent, but not Dorset?
• According to Bowen, most "were simply unprepared for a work that departed so far from the methods of Puccini and Verdi".[68][50] -- Ref order.

A wonderful read. -- Cassianto^Talk 20:35, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your sharp eyes (someone has fixed the ref order), for your review help and support here. Brianboulton (talk) 14:49, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Support: This is an excellent piece of work, which I found very readable and generally easy to follow. The music section lost me in one or two places, but that is more a reflection on me than on the writing. There was nothing obviously wrong there, but in truth I wouldn’t know even if there was. I’ve a few general points/questions about the life section, but none of them are major. Feel free to tell me where to go, and they do not affect my support. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:38, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

• ”He was widely considered to rank with his contemporary Benjamin Britten”: can we say anything stronger than “widely considered”? I also wonder does this point come across clearly in the main body.

• I have reworded "widely considered", and have added a sentence to the legacy section which covers the Tippett/Britten comparison. Brianboulton (talk) 11:47, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

• Is there a link we could use for “lyricism”? If not, best left I think.

• No useful link suggests itself Brianboulton (talk) 11:47, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

• ”Tippett had firmly decided on a career as a composer, a prospect that alarmed them and was discouraged by his headmaster and by Sargent”: Was there any particular reason for everyone’s negative attitude, or just a general “oh no, a life in the arts!” problem?

• I think his parents were hoping for a more conventional career – Cambridge and the law, perhaps. Sargent was not a natural encourager, and the headmaster was probably a fairly conventional soul. Brianboulton (talk) 11:47, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

• ”His overtly expressed atheism particularly troubled the school, and he was required to leave.”: This sounds quite intriguing. Any further details worth adding? We are basically saying he was expelled. What did he do?

• While referreng to Tippett's "undisguised atheism", the only practical examples Kemp gives are his refusal to contribute to the collections at school services and his boycotting of house prayers. Thse would have been considered serious breaches of conduct in a 1920s British school. He wasn't expelled exactly, but his parents were advised not to send him back the following term, which I suppose amounts to much the same thing. Brianboulton (talk) 14:49, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

• ”In 1923 Henry Tippett agreed to support his son in a course of study at the Royal College of Music”: Any reason for the change of attitude?

• It was the idea of a career as a composer that attracted opposition The RCM offered a range of possibilities for a music career – I have added a few words to explain this. Brianboulton (talk) 14:49, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

• Also, in passing, was his overt atheism not a problem at the RCM, as opposed to Stamford?

• No mention of it - RCM was a gown-up institution. Brianboulton (talk) 14:49, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

• Anything further on his sexuality as a young man? We go from “bullying, sadism and homosexuality among the pupils were rife” at school, and that he had formed a relationship, to “By this time Tippett was coming to terms with his homosexuality” when he met Wilfred Franks. Are there any intervening steps? It feels a touch abrupt, but maybe it’s just me.

• There are references in the sources to occasional relationships in his college years. I have summarised these in the last line of the RCM section, and don't feel it appropriate to go further. I want the focus of the article to be on Tippett the musician, not Tippett the homosexual. Brianboulton (talk) 14:49, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

• ”Both works proved hugely popular with their worker-audiences”: Do we really need a hyphen in “worker-audiences”?

• I agree it's an ugly construction, and have made it just "audiences". Brianboulton (talk) 14:49, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

• ”…became the first in the official canon of Tippett's music”: What official canon? Or maybe whose official canon? This is mentioned later too, and could perhaps be defined for the non-specialist.

• I have changed "official" to "recognised", to avoid the impression of some outside officialdom. I think readers will understand, articularly as we have previously discussed a number of "withdrawn" works. Brianboulton (talk) 14:49, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

• ”when he was assigned to non-combatant duties”: Is it worth saying what those duties were?

• He was initially assigned to the ARP (Air Raid Precautions) or the Fire Service, or to work on the land. Later he was given further options including ENSA. The point, though, is that he refused to comply with any of these. I prefer to keep thing simple. Brianboulton (talk) 14:49, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

• ”In the summer of 1965 Tippett made the first of many visits to the United States, to serve as composer in residence at the Aspen Music Festival in Colorado, .”: Something has gone wrong at the end of the sentence here with the punctuation.

• Someone has removed the intruding comma. Brianboulton (talk) 14:49, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

• In the nomination above, you state that he was "less naturally gifted than Britten". Unless I've missed it (which is possible) this doesn't seem to be in the article directly. Is it a point that could be made explicitly? Sarastro1 (talk) 21:38, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

• I think it is fairly self-evident that Tippett was less naturally gifted than Britten, given the speed with which BB established himself in the music world and the time that it took Tippett to do so, but I don't want to overdo the Britten–Tippett comparison in the article. Thank you for your thoughtful comments and suggestions, which I have iether adopted or answered, and thanks for the support. Brianboulton (talk) 14:49, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Hamiltonstone. Generally excellent and well-referenced, and support i would oppose it while it contains one particular clanger:

• "The school was not a happy place; bullying, sadism and homosexuality among the pupils were rife". This linking of a sexual orientation to anti-social behaviour and thence to unhappiness is completely untenable. Homosexuality cannot be "rife" either, it is like saying red-headedness was rife. Serious need of a tweak.
  • Would it be better to say homosexual activity rather than homosexuality? By the way, homosexual activity between men was a criminal offence in the UK in those days. Such activity was an expelling offence in schools and something to be concealed at all costs. To avoid the implications you point out, how about: "The school was not a happy place: bullying and sadism were rife, and homosexual activity, a cause of great shame on those days, was common among the pupils", or words like that? --Stfg (talk) 11:55, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
    • Hmm. I recognise that homosexual acts were criminalised in that period. The two things I want to avoid is the bracketing of homosexuality (a state of sexual preference) with sadism and bullying (forms of anti-social behaviour), and the application of the term "rife" to homosexuality; I also agree that referring to acts or activity may also assist. The problem with "shame" is that it places its origin within the individual, in contrast to the term "stigma" for example, which places it in the society which criminalises the act (which i would suggest is more accurate, while accepting that Tippett, like others, did struggle with his own sexual identity). How about: "The school was not a happy place: bullying and sadism were rife, and homosexual activity, which was illegal, was common among the pupils"? Can I just check though: do the sources refer to homosexuality, or to homosexual acts? In the circumstances, the distinction could be important.hamiltonstone (talk) 22:26, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
      • I am sorry if my wording caused offence. In fact it follows the sources quite closely, e.g. Bowen: "He found the bullying, the homosxuality and the emphasis on cold baths quite intolerable"; and Kemp: "Bullying and sadism were commnplace ... The ageing headmaster zealously upheld the principle that the younger boys were the property of the older". I take the point that homosexuality as such should not be automatically aligned with sadism and bullying, although sexual bullying in such schools was common, even in my day, half a century after Tippett. I have reworded the phrase to "sadistic bullying of the younger pupils was commonplace", leaving out direct reference to the sexual element. I personally prefer this to the extended wording suggested above, but I am happy to be guided. Brianboulton (talk) 10:12, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
        • Given that the social stigma once applied to homosexuality is today far less than it was when Tippett was a schoolboy, it is difficult to convey to readers nowadays the covert and often warped sexuality to be found at British boarding schools, not all of it involving younger pupils, mixed with much overt homophobia, even in the 1960s and '70s. Given this, and the dangers of WP:SYN and WP:OR (looking at the available sources), I think Brian has done a very tactful and acceptable edit. (btw, a minor point, but given that boys' boarding schools were, by definition, single sex and boarders' contact with girls was, at best, strictly controlled in Tippett's time, to an extent I think it might have been said that in those circumstances homosexuality, or rather homosexual acts, were "rife".) Alfietucker (talk) 10:36, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
          • Thanks Brian. I wasn't offended, just would not want to see concepts inappropriately connected. Agree with much of Alfie's observations including that in some such circumstances it is homosexual acts, not homosexuality, which may be common. Brian's solution appears excellent and focusses on the core of the problem i think. hamiltonstone (talk) 11:50, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Other comments:

• "His overtly expressed atheism" should this perhaps be hyphenated as "overtly-expressed"? But I'm not sure.
  • Standard practice is not to hyphenate after a -ly adverb. --Stfg (talk) 08:46, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
• "quasi-authentic". Really? The previous sentence expresses what is meant, but to my ear "quasi-authentic" is a contradiction. i would omit the description altogether since we have already been told the meaning.

• I used "quasi" (Latin: "as if") in the sense of "resembling but not actually", but I accept that, given the description in the previous sentence, the term is unnecessary and have removed it. Brianboulton (talk) 15:05, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

• I am not sure that the final para, beginning "In the 1930s, while still unsure of his sexuality,..." is in the right place. It is both an odd way to end the article, and not really text appropriate to the section's heading "reputation and legacy". While it obviously addresses a great time span, I would try it as the first paragraph of "Later life".

• I have moved the paragraph to where you suggest. I agree that it doesn't fit comfortably in a "Legacy" section, though I'm not absolutely convinced it's in the best place now. If further thoughts occur, I may move it again. Brianboulton (talk) 15:05, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

• In the Wright reference, I assume the 2 is meant to be a quote mark or similar? "2Decline or renewal in late Tippett..."

• This seems to have been fixed.

Marvellous research and writing. hamiltonstone (talk) 02:09, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

• Thank you for your comments and suggestions, all positive and thought-provoking and contributing to the improvement of the article. Brianboulton (talk) 15:05, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Support: I was another who had my say at PR and it has only been strengthened since then. Another excellent and interesting read. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 16:11, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Support: I had my say at PR and I fully support this article's promotion to FA - a very impressive piece of work. Alfietucker (talk) 21:36, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

My sincere thanks to the above two, whose contributions at the peer review stage were much appreciated. Brianboulton (talk) 20:01, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

SupportComment Is After Britten's death in 1976, Tippett became widely regarded as the doyen of British music. However, critical opinion of his later works was by no means uniformly positive; after the first performance of the Triple Concerto in 1980, Driver wrote that "not since The Knot Garden has [he] produced anything worthy of his early masterpieces". really up to our standards for prose? I don't like the "however", which seems to me to imply a contradiction where none should exist, and the tailend of the sentence looks clumsy. Any suggestions? --John (talk) 20:18, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Re "However", I think Stfg has already answered this very well on Talk:Michael Tippett#However: "However signals (or acknowledges) a contrast, not necessarily anywhere near as strong as a contradiction. By all means choose another link word, but with no link word at all, I find it bumpy -- anything but "brilliant prose"." Alfietucker (talk) 21:36, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I think "however" is justified, particular as I have "now amplified on the "doyen" description. I do accept that, as noted on the talk, "by no means uniformly positive" is unnecessarily verbose and have simplified this to "not always positive". Brianboulton (talk) 15:37, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I now support based on the minor changes made on the article. It's a fine piece of work. --John (talk) 22:23, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the support, and for the numerous minor improvements you made to the prose in the course of your unobtrusive review. Brianboulton (talk) 00:05, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose—To start with, I cannot support the unsourced gossip in the lead concerning a comparison with another composer. It violates WP:UNDUE; it is highly unusual for a bio article, particularly one on an artist, scholar, or scientist. Tony (talk) 14:57, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

• I do not understand this objection. Stating that "he was considered to rank with his contemporary Benjamin Britten as one of the leading British composers" is hardly making a comparison, merely reflecting what critics have written. If you are objecting to the words "with his contemporary Benjamin Britten" perhaps you'd say so, and we can discuss the matter. In any event, comparisons between Tippett and Britten are not "unsourced gossip". Indeed, Whittall wrote an entire book on the subject, which is quoted from in the Legacy section. I also quote from a newspaper report which compares the post-mortem fortunes of the two. Perhaps I am misunderstanding the point of your objection; meanwhile I contend that the article gives no undue weight to this comparison, and will be interested to see if other editors share your viewpoint. Brianboulton (talk) 15:17, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
• I'm not sure I see anything either unsourced, or that could be described as gossip. As per WP:LEAD, I see a lead that reflects the contents of the article, and the comparison between Britten and Tippett are adequately covered in reliable sources in the article body. - SchroCat (talk) 15:40, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
• I too am perplexed by Tony1's comment. The relations between Tippett and Britten and comparisons between their music are a recurrent theme in the relevant literature, and, as SchroCat says, sourced citations are given in the main text. The phrase "unsourced gossip" is way off the mark, as the material is neither unsourced nor gossip. I worked recently on the biography part of the Britten FA and everything in the present article relevant to the relationship between and music of Britten and Tippett accords with what I know from my researches for that. In my opinion this stray "oppose" carries no weight and should be withdrawn or discounted. Tim riley (talk) 17:45, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
• Tony1, could you elaborate on this "gossip"? I don't see it either. --Cassianto^Talk 20:14, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
• I don't want to overegg the pudding, but among relevant material not used in the article is Meirion Bowen's 1986 programme note "Britten, Tippett and the Second English Musical Renaissance" which regards the two as " figureheads for a fresh surge of compositional activity in this country after the Second World War"; Charles Fussell's 1984 review of Whittall's book, here, which brackets them as "two twentieth century masters", and some interesting stuff in Humphrey Burton's Britten biography which notes that, in the early 1970s, "Britten's reputation had been overtaken by that of Tippett" – and that Tippett was aware of this! My article is not basically about Tippett vis à vis Britten; the main purpose of mentioning the latter is to establish that, in the view of many critics, Tippett was "up there" with the best. I must say, finally, that Tony was very helpful in the early stages of the article's development, and I welcomed his cooperation. Brianboulton (talk) 20:26, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

• I don't take all that much store by Bowen. Why is Britten not "considered to rank with his contemporary" Tippettt, in the lead to the article on Britten? This cannot help but cast Tippett as second fiddle. He would have hated it. He and Britten had a strained relationship, to put it mildly, and it's POV to privilege one over the other in this way. If it's sourced in the article further down, that is fine: to trumpet it as a key aspect of understanding the phenomenon of Tippett is most inappropriate. Tony (talk) 08:11, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

• Rather than get drawn on the issue of who thought/thinks Tippett ranks alongside or out-ranks Britten (though one could also mention Sir Colin Davis and Robert Tear among those who thought Tippett a greater composer), I would just point out that the sentence as it stands has the qualifying words "In his [Tippett's] lifetime..." and "one of the leading British composers of the 20th century". Note that it doesn't say "one of the two leading British composers of the 20th century", so it doesn't even suggest that Tippett is somehow equal to Britten - just someone who ranks alongside Britten in being esteemed as a "leading British composers of the 20th century". Nor does it suggest he shares the same esteem today - on the contrary, the lead then mentions "His centenary in 2005 was a muted affair; apart from the few best-known works, performances of his music have been infrequent in the 21st century.". A possible compromise might be (bearing in mind that the 20th century included Vaughan Williams, Walton and Elgar) to say instead "one of the leading British composers of his generation". What does everyone else think? Alfietucker (talk) 09:30, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks, Alfie, for your summary of the situation and for your suggested solution. Per Tony: I don't see that mentioning the two in the same breath in the lead is "trumpeting", as you call it, it's merely an observation that helps to put Tippett into perspective among recent English composers. I am frankly surprised that you should accuse me of resorting to "unsourced gossip" in preparing articles; I do have higher standards than that. As I have said, though, the article is not intended to provide a comparison between Tippett and Britten. To bring an end to this discussion I am prepared to remove the words "with his contemporary Benjamin Britten" from the first paragraph, and to adopt Alfie's "of his generation" format, if that will meet your objection. Brianboulton (talk) 10:12, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

• I'm not even happy with the "muted affair"—gives undue weight, wrong impression. Heck, the 250th anniversary of JS Bach's death was a muted affair ... amazingly so. Tony (talk) 13:02, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

• It is an important aspect of Tippett that the near-veneration he enjoyed in the latter part of his life eroded after his death. The rather underwhelming centenary celebrations were a reflection of this. What "wrong impression" are you suggesting is given by the brief mention in the lead? Incidentally, do you intend interacting with above discussion, which is an attempt to resolve your "Britten and Tippett" concern? Brianboulton (talk) 16:08, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

• I'm not entirely sure "in 1996 he broke his retirement to write "Caliban's Song" as a contribution to the Purcell tercentenary" is sufficient to support "active into his 90s" in the lead, although technically correct
• Check alphabetization of Sources
• Be consistent in whether you disambiguate short cites by the same author using date or title. If the latter is chosen, Gloag's chapter titles should use quotes not italics
• FN80: page range is unabbreviated here, abbreviated elsewhere
• Ridout: check wikilinking
• Check formatting of quote marks within titles
• Collisson or Collinson?
• FN162: which Whittall?
• No citations to Ford, Venn. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:34, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

• All the above fixed – thanks for your diligence. In the caption, "active" means in the general sense, rather than strictly compositional, e.g. he still got around, went to festivals etc. He even travelled to Stockholm a couple of months before his death. So I think the term is probably justified. Brianboulton (talk) 15:57, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

A few niggles:

• "So God ..." box. Is the quoted text significantly indented for other people too, or is it just a quirk of my browser?
  • It's far too much indented (three colons). I was going to bring this up in the review I'm preparing, too. --Stfg (talk) 14:04, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

• Is this better? Brianboulton (talk) 17:22, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

• Newton Park snow pic: is it really sufficiently relevant to include. It's a pity there are so few free pics related to Tippett.

• It is, I agree, only marginally relevant. The problem is the shortage of relevant free images. I personally think this one does no harm, but I would not fight for its retention. Brianboulton (talk) 17:22, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

• String Quartet No. 1: is that meant to be in italics? And later, "Fifth String Quartet"; could the naming be regularlised?

• The basis for italiciastion I've used, I think consistently, is to italicise descriptive titles such as The Rose Lake or Variations on a theme of Corelli, but to leave unitalicised titles which are a numbered common genre, e.g. Symphony No 1, String Quartet No 1 etc. There are a few borderline instances, and I may have slipped up once or twice. As to "String Quartet No 1" versus "First String Quartet", I find that sources use these formats interchangeably, perhaps to vary the prose, and I have followed in their footsteps. Brianboulton (talk) 17:22, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

• "Tippett could have studied with Ralph Vaughan Williams, but decided against this because he thought this would lead him into imitation of his distinguished teacher, rather than towards finding his own voice."—Is the distinguished teacher referred to actually Vaughan Williams, that is, the one he didn't study under? I'm confused.

• I have amended the note: "Tippett could have studied with Ralph Vaughan Williams, but decided against this because he thought that study under so distinguished a teacher would lead him to imitation rather than towards finding his own voice."

• Is it both Clarke and Kemp (refs 35 and 121) whose idea it was to divide his output into three stages, as used below to structure the text about his works? I don't get a sense at the start of each of these "period" sections of of text that the rationale for the discontinuity is explained. For example, "The 1960s marked the beginning of a new phase in which Tippett's style became more experimental, reflecting both the social and cultural changes of that era, and the broadening of his own experiences." doesn't quite ring true to me ... there were plenty of experiments before then. The Triple Concerto (1972)—which "period" does this fall into? It has moments of extraordinary lyricism; it is very experimental in some ways; and in conception I'd say it harks beck to the triple concertos of previous centuries, particularly Brahms's.

• Clarke specifically divides the output into three phases; Kemp, writing in the early 1980s, doesn't say much about the post 1976 compositions, though he marks the break of the late 50s–early 1960s. The "great divide" circa 1960 is marked in various sources, as is the return to lyricism late in the composer's career. But the dividing lines are not absolute, hence the reference to "fluid boundaries" – this acknowledges that Tippett certainly experimented before the 1960s and wrote lyrical episodes in every phase of his career. Brianboulton (talk) 17:22, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

• The article describes the "general characteristics" of his music, but nowhere is there a description of the hallmarks of his music style—his harmonic language, counterpoint, rhythm, scoring, formal structures, textural devices. This is not something that WP's composer articles are strong on; but now is a good time to think about it. Groves Dictionary is better at this. Tony (talk) 13:02, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

• On the last point, I think that a comparison with the ODNB article is perhaps more apposite than that with Grove. The Grove Online article (Clarke) was written with a particular readership in mind – music scholars or students. Much of it is incomprehensible to the general reader (sample text: "That of the Double Concerto (ex.1) draws its intervallic profile from the pentatonic collection E–F♯–A–B–D, or transposed fragments of it. The set in its various transpositions confers a unifying tendency on the work as a whole, symptomatic of a symphonic conception..." – there is much more of that ilk). I have always sought in my WP music biographies to describe the composer's music in terms that the general reader can understand, not to get bogged down in technical descriptions. The links to scholarly articles, and the identification of expert sources, are there to assist the discriminating reader in studying further. Brianboulton (talk) 17:22, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

• • Brian, thanks for your responses and edits. Yes, defining the style is a hard task. I have Kemp open in front of me, and it's not easy to extract something that useable. Nevertheless, it would be possible to give musical readers (not specialists) a general feeling for the character of his music – the rhythmic features, including metrical instability; the reasonably high level of harmonic dissonance and, in places, the use of bitonality; the dramatic use of modulation; the expansive character of his melodies; the use, in some works, of classical forms. Stravinsky isn't named as an influence, but the seminal Second Symphony owes an awful lot to his neoclassical period. The way the symphony closes with the augmentation of the opening idea seems to have come from Stravinsky's Symphony in C, and although derivative in a sense, is beautifully handled. Surely someone has written about this. Tony (talk) 07:41, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

• • The most recent scholarly discussion of Tippett's symphonies is Edward Venn's essay in the 2013 Cambridge Companion. He acknowledges the Second Symphony's debt to Stravinskian neoclassicism, without referring specifically to the latter's Symphony in C. I agree that Stravinsky should be mentioned in the influences, and beyond that I will add some material to the "General character" section to further explain Tippet's music in terms of rhythm, metre, bitonality etc. It may be a day or two before I get to this, as I have first to tackle the remainder of Stfg's objections on which I am presently working. Brianboulton (talk) 10:07, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
    • I have now added a couple of paragraphs to the "General character" section, along the lines indicated above. Together with the preceding paragraphs, and the "Influences" section which follows, I think these details give general readers a reasonable feel for the nature of Tippett's music, and something of the philosophy behind it, in language that will not completely defeat them. I have also added Stravinsky to the influences – bad omission, that. Brianboulton (talk) 21:21, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Stfg

Disclaimer: I've only reviewed what's in the article itself, and mainly for the quality of writing. I haven't carried out spot checks of sources for verification and proper paraphrasing.

The article is well on its way to featured standard, with an especially good coverage of Tippett's life. However, I feel that the prose has some way to go. For me there are two or three showstoppers and quite a large number of details to fix. So, although I hope to move to support before review time is up, it's oppose for now. Support The article is an excellent read, and I'm happy that all the points I raised below are dealt with. --Stfg (talk) 18:21, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Major points:

• The whole Works section is too much of a quote farm. Quotes need to give information, not merely a stream-of-consciousness impression. An example of a good one is "gift for launching a confident flow of sharply characterized, contrapuntally combined ideas", which tells us something about Tippett's style. A few examples of verbiage and drivel are:
  • "strongly structured, richly textured and intensely expressive"
  • "one of the supreme musical-theatrical creations of our bruised and battered century"
  • "[o]ne could not easily bear a plethora of performances, for the work burns too deeply" (and by the way, in that one there's a line wrap after [o] on my display: you need to use {{nobreak}} if you do this kind of thing)
  • "I long to hear this stirring, paining, interrogating, always compelling music many times and as often as possible"

and there are plenty more. All the quotations really need going over to see which could be paraphrased.

• The severe over-use of semicolons, which badly disrupt the reading experience. I'm wondering if this is an epidemic in WikiProject Classical Music, since I've seen it before, and at least two other editors have commented on it. Good uses of semicolons are listed at Semicolon#Usage (which gives clearer and better guidance than WP:SEMICOLON, imo). Good uses in this article include all three lists of elements that themselves have structure, and perhaps the sentence "Both of these works show influence of folk music; the finale of the Piano Sonata is marked by innovative jazz syncopations.", where there is some balance between the two halves. But things like "His farewell took the form of three concerts which he conducted at the new Royal Festival Hall; the programmes included A Child of Our Time, the British premiere of Carl Orff's Carmina Burana, and Thomas Tallis's rarely-performed 40-part motet Spem in alium." have no merit at all. They serve merely to distract the reader from the content to the writing, and thus to arouse suspicion that the writer is showing off. The semicolon expresses no useful nuance -- and nuance should anyway be expressed with words and syntax, not with punctuation, for reasons of accessibility. There are zillions of examples like this in the article.
• There are also some plain incorrect commas, though they are less irritating. For example, "in 1983 Tippett became president of the London College of Music, and was appointed to the Order of Merit" is wrong, because this is just two things, and you don't put commas in lists of two. (I corrected that one and a few others, but there are dozens more.) Also, the article is not yet completely consistent as to whether or not it uses serial commas.
  • The comment on commas is still my view, but it has been fairly challenged by Tony, and I don't want us to get bogged down with it here. So I've struck it, and it won't be an obstacle to stop me moving to support when the other comments are addressed. --Stfg (talk) 12:09, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Detailed comments: Not bothering to strike all these -- too tedious -- but I think everything has been dealt with but one, which I'll add at the end. --Stfg (talk) 18:21, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Lede:

• "were enamoured of" is verbose -- welcomed?
• "the communist cause" likewise -- communism?

Family background

• why is "Liberal" capitalized? (if it's the party, then worth wikilinking)
• "at Trafalgar Square" -> "in Trafalgar Square"
• suffragism/suffragette duplicated link

Childhood and schooling

• "when Tippett and another boy played, on pianos, Bach's C minor Concerto for Two Harpsichords with a local string orchestra": a less awkward word order would be "when Tippett and another boy played Bach's C minor Concerto for Two Harpsichords on pianos with a local string orchestra". Also, see Harpsichord concertos (J. S. Bach)#Concertos for two harpsichords. Both BVW1060 and BVW1062 are in C minor. Do we know which one this was? If so, we could wikilink it.

• Unfortunately the source does not specify which it was. Brianboulton (talk) 23:02, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Royal College of Music

• "Rather than continuing to study for a doctorate, Tippett decided to leave the academic environment at that point": the last 3 words are redundant.
• should wikilink Limpsfield.

• No, the "Oxted and Limpsfield Players" is the name of a theatrical group. Brianboulton (talk) 23:02, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

False start

• Duplicate link to Stanford.

Friendships, politics and music

• "Its first public concert was held on 5 March 1933; the venue was Morley College, later to become Tippett's professional base." Choppy, even disregarding the semicolon. Better: "Its first public concert was held on 5 March 1933 at Morley College, later to become Tippett's professional base."
• I changed the width of the quote box from 180px to 18em. Setting the width in pixels interacts badly with user font size settings. I hope that's all right.

• No problem. Brianboulton (talk) 23:02, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

• "at Boosbeck" -> "in Boosbeck"

• I don't think the camps were actually "in" Boosbeck, a small mining village. Sources use "at" or "near" – I think that "near" is probably most appropriate. Brianboulton (talk) 23:02, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

• "In October 1934 Tippett and the South London Orchestra performed at a centenary celebration of the Tolpuddle Martyrs, within a grand Pageant of Labour at the Crystal Palace." -- "within" reads quite strangely here -- "as part of"?

A Child of Our Time

• "Using a three-part structure based on Handel's Messiah, Tippett took the novel step of using North American spirituals in place of the traditional chorales that punctuate oratorio texts." (a) In what sense is the structure "based on" that of Messiah? Lots of things have three-part structures. (b) It's a bit confusing, because Messiah doesn't have chorales. Maybe we need two separatye sentences here?

• As the Child article explains: "The text that Tippett prepared follows the three-part structure used in Handel's Messiah, in which Part I is prophetic and preparatory, Part II narrative and epic, Part III meditative and metaphysical." I didn't think that level of detail was necessary in this article, but I can add it if necessary. I think your (b) confusion might be mitigated by replacing "Using" with "Within". Brianboulton (talk) 23:02, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

• "The spirituals provide, according to Kenneth Gloag's commentary on the work, 'moments of focus ...'" is a bit bumpy. Better: "According to Kenneth Gloag's commentary on the work, the spirituals provide 'moments of focus ...'"?

Morley, war, imprisonment

• Give Morley College Choir its full name and wikilink it?

Recognition and controversy

• "Alfred Deller, the counter-tenor, ..." -> "the counter-tenor Alfred Deller ..."

• A small point, but the problem with that format is that it creates undivided blue, while my format separates the links with "the".

• "rarely-performed" no hyphen
• "tenor voice" -> just "tenor"
• "arranged some of the music into a concert suite" -> "... as a concert suite"

King Priam and after

• "the village High Street at Corsham in Wiltshire" : in or of, not at

• "of" sounds wrong, as does "in the village High Street in Corsham in Wiltshire". I have simplified to "In 1960 Tippett moved to a house in the Wiltshire village of Corsham,

• "a 'great divide' in Tippett's music, between the works ..." : "in Tippett's music" is redundant

Wider horizons

• "further afield, " redundant
• "Tippett had maintained his pacifist beliefs, while becoming generally less public in expressing them, and since 1959 had been president of the Peace Pledge Union." why had (both times)?

• Changed to: "Tippett maintained his pacifist beliefs, while becoming generally less public in expressing them, and from 1959 served as president of the Peace Pledge Union." Brianboulton (talk) 00:01, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Later life

• "His libretto has been criticised for its awkward attempts at American street vernacular,[97] and has not found a place in the general repertory" -> "His libretto has been criticised for its awkward attempts at American street vernacular,[97] and the opera has not found a place in the general repertory"
• "This is an attempt, in Tippett's words, to ..." -> "In Tippett's words, this is an attempt to ..." because the quote, not the attempt, is in Tippett's words.
• "At home, " redundant.
• Duplicate link to gamelan.

General characterics

• Arnold Whittall sees the music as embodying Tippett's philosophy of "ultimately optimistic humanism",[106] reflecting a century, Kemp recalls, of "two world wars, a rape of civilised values more horrible and protracted than had ever been known before. -- This looks like synthesis. Did either Tippett nor Kemp say the whole thing?

• I have rewritten the above in a simplified form. Brianboulton (talk) 00:01, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Works

• "formal compositional career" -- formal?

• The sources refer to his "official" canon, which I think is probably worse. I have changed "formal" to "acknowledged". Brianboulton (talk) 00:01, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

First period: 1935 to late 1950s

• Parenthetic "Kemp says" ... parenthetic "Tippett says" : repetitious.

• I have varied as much as I can – "says", "writes", "according to..." etc. It is the curse of having to attribute statements and opinions. Brianboulton (talk) 00:01, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

• Duplicate links to Symphony No. 1 and Symphony No. 2

• I think the duplicated links are allowable. The earlier links are some way back, in the "Life" section, and readers of the "Music" section might find these useful. Brianboulton (talk) 00:01, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Second period: King Priam to 1976

• Duplicate links to The Knot Garden, The Ice Break and The Times

• Per above, but this soes not apply to The Times. Brianboulton (talk) 00:01, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Third period: 1977 to 1995

• "the latter 1970s" -> "the late 1970s"?
• Duplicate links to Symphony No. 4 and New Year

• Per above Brianboulton (talk) 00:01, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

--Stfg (talk) 18:22, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your review. I have worked through your "Detailed comments", and except where I have indicated, you can take it that I have adopted your suggestion or something very similar. Tomorrow I will work on the semicolons and other punctuation issues, before tackling the quotes. Brianboulton (talk) 00:10, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Stfg, mostly very good points, but I think you're a little severe ("verbiage and drivel"?). Brian's a first-class writer, although of course needs feedback and correction like the best. I don't quite agree with some of your suggestions/criticisms, such as the removal of the comma after "and". Tony (talk) 07:46, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for reading them, Tony. I comment on the writing, not on the writer (and naturally my comments -- and writing efforts -- need feedback and correction just as much). "Verbiage and drivel" applies to what is inside those quotes, of course, not to Brian's writing. Your comment about commas surprises me a lot. I suspect that a discussion of commas with "and" could run and run, and we should try not to bog down a FAC review with it. Do you want to have that discussion? Where? --Stfg (talk) 09:46, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Just to add: I don't feel in the least that the "verbiage and drivel" comment was aimed at me, rather than at the quotes themselves. I had a quiet chuckle – we should not take ourselves, or our subjects, too seriously. Over-reliance on verbatim quotations, particularly when they are plucked from context, is a fault for which I have often taken editors to task when reviewing, and I am happy to accept the criticism here and to remedy it. Brianboulton (talk) 10:17, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

For Stfg: I believe I have responded to your concerns as expressed above:

• See my individual replies to your "detailed comments"
  • Thank you. Yes, I agree with all those except, perhaps, "acknowledged compositional career". I see what you're getting at, but it rings a bit strange. Is "mature compositional career" anywhere nearer? --Stfg (talk) 18:21, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
• I have reduced the semicolon count by about 75 per cent. A few remain, which I think are justified – please let me know if you think otherwise. I admit that a preoccupation with semicolons has tended to infect my prose style since my college days, despite my attempts to curtail it. I shall look closely at a forthcoming TFA (9th November)
  • Magnificent job. Thank you. --Stfg (talk) 18:21, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
• I have reduced the number of direct quotations in the "Works" section by over half, concentrating particularly those you might describe as "drivel". I believe the balance between quotation and paraphrase is now about right. I have kept the odd drivelly one in, as I don't wish to deprive our esteemed sources of all colour in their expression. So Bowen's "bordello" comment stays in, as does Henehan's acerbic dismissal of New Year, and I have tended to retain Tippett's own words. Let me know what you think. Brianboulton (talk) 18:09, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Yes, it reads like your own account rather than a pot-pourri now, and what Tippett himself said is, of course, worth keeping. I've moved to support now. --Stfg (talk) 18:21, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

• • Thanks for the time and trouble you have taken with this article which I believe has, as a result, improved significantly. Thanks, too, for the support. I'll continue to look for an alternative to "acknowledged compositional career". The trouble with "mature" is that he withdrew all his compositions before the First String Quartet - that was the first work that he "acknowledged" to be within his canon. It's a tough one. Brianboulton (talk) 21:42, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

I guess there may not be a completely natural way to say that part of his compositional career when he wrote the works he didn't withdraw :) The context is "After the withdrawn works written in the 1920s and early 1930s, analysts generally divide Tippett's acknowledged compositional career into three main phases, ...". In that context, would "the remainder of Tippett's compositional career" do it? Or even, since we're discussing his work, just "the rest of Tippett's output"? --Stfg (talk) 22:05, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

I have changed "acknowledged" to "mature", which is a bit risky as he was 30 at the time. But musically he was a late starter, so I think the word can be justified, and it probably raises fewer questions than "acknowledged". Brianboulton (talk) 11:31, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

• This now looks very good to me. Brian and others have done a lovely job. Tony (talk) 06:44, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Notes

• Perhaps as a military history editor I'm a bit jaded but I always tend to think it's unnecessary to link such a broad and (presumably!) well-known topic as Second World War...
• I noticed half a dozen duplinks to various works and concepts -- was that deliberate given the article's organisation?

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:01, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Ian. I have delinked both world wars (I agree not necessary). The duplicate links were deliberate; it's my practice to re-link works mentioned in the music section, as often in composer biographies this section is studied separately from the "Life" section. I note I have missed a couple of repeat links, and I will attend to these. Brianboulton (talk) 19:35, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Tks Brian, that's all fine. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:26, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 06:28, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.