![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
During some attempts at improving the article, all critical views and evaluations of Segovia have been removed ( [1]). These views are cited reality, however have been removed from the article's current presentation ( [2]); leaving it onesided and biased. This is a huge violation of one of the most important cornerstones of wikipedia: That of neutral point of view. The wikipedia policy can be found at the NPOV page and states: "An article and its sub-articles should clearly describe, represent, and characterize all the disputes within a topic, but should not endorse any particular point of view. It should explain who believes what, and why, and which points of view are most common." . The numerous cited evaluations which were removed, are still available in a previous version of the article: [3]; and need to be swiftly incorporated into the current article, if neutrality is to be upheld. Segovia was ( talk) 17:24, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
No it wasn't critical evaluation. It read as spam. If you think an encyclopedia should be all about a mass collection of quotes you are wrong. The article was in a right mess, people thanked me for cleaning it up. Dr. Blofeld - 15:36, 18 July 2010 (UTC) 08:20, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
I would want to know why exactly you added this tag. What is POV-led in the article NOW? You cannot add such tags without specifying what exactly is problematic, and you are actually edit warring. I see absolutely no POV on the article, and I think the article is now in much better shape. Shahid • Talk2me 11:55, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Exactly. The article contains no POV. The only thing you could question is the claim he was one of the finest of the 20th century which is supported by three reliable sources. I strongly suggest you read WP:NPOV and exactly what it means. The article is well sourced and neutral, I, Shahid, or any admin can see this. You do not need 300 unecncylopedic quotes to be neutral. If you want to assert more criticism of his teaching style I can eleaborate on it a little but i have said that people criticised him and jOhn Williams thought he wans't a good teacher. But it is done in a way which doesn't warble on and on like your article did.
The article discusses his career and repertoire encyclopedically without any claims saying how great he was. These sentences: His teaching style is a source of controversy among some of today's players, who consider it to be dogmatically authoritarian.[12][13][14] John Williams for instance criticized his scope as a teacher and spoke of the atmosphere of fear in his classes. I have no idea why you think this article is not neutral. It is certainly not blowing his trumpet or being strongly critical. Dr. Blofeld - 15:36, 18 July 2010 (UTC) 12:12, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
No you are confusing POV/neutrality with lack of breadth of issue coverage. Its certianly not the same thing. The article was/is missing some important aspects of his work which will be written in due course, but nots not the same as it containing original research, POV and peacock words. Have a go at rewriting these issues then but please do not restore it to one zillion different quotes. This is (supposedly) an encyclopedia. An effective summary can be achieved with prose and the occasional quotes. I strongly suggest you write a condensed version of what you want to be included at User:Segovia was/Andrés Segovia. Once you've finished we can see how it can be intergrated into the article, I will read it and ensure you retain focus. But I'm telling you now. If it reads like it did before, going off the beaten track and quoting everybody who ever said anything about Segovia is will not be included. Yes information is important but it is an encylopedia in which the biggest objective is to be concise and focused which the old article seriously was lacking in. Dr. Blofeld - 15:36, 18 July 2010 (UTC) 14:16, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
PS: My active editing of this article, has for the time being ceased with the words "Let me conclude with ..."; written above. I might make small edits from time to time, or give you some suggestions (such as below); but I don't have the interest anymore, to do anything big with this article - for the time being; perhaps because I feel that many issues have been covered in the articles' old version, and that the old version was superior, and that you have taken the old version apart completely, reducing it to something that is not worth my time/effort and interest. But if you want my brief opinion on things, you're welcome to ask. Segovia was ( talk) 16:41, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
The "Criticism" section is a WP:STRUCTURE and WP:UNDUE violation. The material should be incorporated into the article, and "should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more widely held views." -- Ronz ( talk) 16:04, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
I think the Segovia article can be improved with a reception section (which gives not only the reception during his lifetime but also contemporary perspectives). The fact is that there is a lot of Segovia criticism, that a reader interested in the subject should know about. It does not mean that this criticism is truth, but it does represent many people's current perspective of Segovia, and does deserve to be handled in the article. One could mention some of the critical views, and present it as an interesting aspect of how musical tastes differ and have changed. See for example the second and second-last paragraph from
this musicweb-article. So today's player's are more accurate and strict etc. But then one could also present criticism of this modern strictness tendency -> quote from
the musicweb-article "One may listen to recordings of many of these artists and not be able to identify one player from another; musicality appears of secondary importance." So this again brings Segovia into a positive light. One could end with this quote which balances it all: "But more important than any label I can use to describe Segovia's "approach" is a certain general quality found in his playing which I think most music lovers would find almost irresistible: an intense identification with the music he is playing that breathes life and gives character to every note and phrase. Occasionally (or perhaps frequently, particularly with Bach) we may find the character inappropriate, due to changing taste and/or musicological evidence, but with Segovia the intention is always utterly sincere and deeply felt." (
"The Art of Segovia (The H.M.V. Recordings; 1927-39)" by Gregory Dinger — ARSC JOURNAL Volume XIII, No. 3 (1981), p. 116-119.)
Regarding critical contemporary views: a lot of good information can be found in an old version of the article:
see here. It really would be a shame if some of the good information therein is simply lost, since we therein find views of
Matanya Ophee, John Williams, Yehudi Menuhin, etc. Another interesting view is that by Colin Cooper (editor of Classical Guitar Magazine), who wrote: Segovia left large footprints, but they lead in a direction that is no longer of much musical significance. What modern guitarist would want to play to an audience of 3000 without amplification? Who could offer today's audiences arrangements of Haydn minuets and Bach gavottes isolated from the works of which they form a structural part? And who would dare to play them in the style that Segovia did?
Nevertheless, there is room for a large personality to leave his mark on the guitar world, as Liszt did with the piano, but I don't see one at the moment. (
source). Ultimately, failing to present contemporary views of Segovia (which often happen to be critical) is a
NPOV violation (Neutral point of view). Thus an effort should be made to present this information in a balanced, informative and interesting way. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Musical guitar prof (
talk •
contribs)
12:24, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
All the details in the early life paragraph are taken from the interview given by Segovia for the 13-part radio series Segovia!. An edited excerpt is included in the book Secrets From The Masters (Published by GPI Books) and this is the source used.
Sluffs ( talk) 01:45, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
Is there no discography, or have I missed it? — Preceding unsignedcomment added by 86.152.151.189 ( talk) 08:46, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
I agree -- it's amazing that he recorded at least in the 1940s and after and there's not a single album listed. I came to his entry today to see what some were. AllMusic.com's no help, either -- it only has since the 1980s. I found this reference ( http://www.classicalguitardelcamp.com/viewtopic.php?t=92667), but don't know how accurate it is. BlueIris2 ( talk) 20:25, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
Does anyone know how many concert tours he did in the 80s before he died? The current version of the article doesn't mention this, & it might be interesting to add a sentence or two about it. I wasn't able to find any performance videos on YouTube dating to that period (some from the 1960s). I saw him perform in Pittsburgh, PA circa 1983 when he was about 90, & it was very impressive to hear someone of that age playing so amazingly such complex pieces. Funhistory ( talk) 01:03, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 8 external links on Andrés Segovia. 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).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 17:44, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Andrés Segovia. 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:23, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
I would like to point out that whilst the quoted Jim Tosone article from 2000 states, "many professional classical guitarists were either students of Segovia or students of Segovia's students".
I feel as a student of one of Segovia's students (and very much alive at 34 years old at the time of writing) and a professional guitarist since graduating a specialist music school where I was taught by a student of Segovia's, that the wording "were" to me and to other readers, could imply past tense and that that all these professional classical guitarists could have all passed away or that the tradition has ended. I've tried re-reading this several times and can't read it another way.
May I suggest re-wording this important phrase at the start of this article to reflect a vibrant and very much current lineage? For example, "many professional classical guitarists of the 20th and 21st centuries (have) studied with Segovia or with one of Segovia's students" and then a footnote can be given with the original quote from Tosone, allowing the reader to see the original and how it was edited for clarity. What do other readers and editors think? Mattredman98 ( talk) 01:41, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
In the last half-century, there have been very many evaluations of the legacy of Segovia – one of the most influential figures of classical guitar – by musicians, academics, critics, etc., but even mention of their existence is nearly entirely absent from the current article. After 13 years since the previous discussions here, it seems more than due to reattempt a balanced coverage, because like it or not, those evaluations do indeed exist and are plenty notable. The above diff looks like a good starting point, but rather than an assorted list of quotes, hopefully it can take the form of a concentrated encyclopedic summary. Neither a die-hard nor a critic, by the way, not that it matters. Hftf ( talk) 09:08, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
During some attempts at improving the article, all critical views and evaluations of Segovia have been removed ( [1]). These views are cited reality, however have been removed from the article's current presentation ( [2]); leaving it onesided and biased. This is a huge violation of one of the most important cornerstones of wikipedia: That of neutral point of view. The wikipedia policy can be found at the NPOV page and states: "An article and its sub-articles should clearly describe, represent, and characterize all the disputes within a topic, but should not endorse any particular point of view. It should explain who believes what, and why, and which points of view are most common." . The numerous cited evaluations which were removed, are still available in a previous version of the article: [3]; and need to be swiftly incorporated into the current article, if neutrality is to be upheld. Segovia was ( talk) 17:24, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
No it wasn't critical evaluation. It read as spam. If you think an encyclopedia should be all about a mass collection of quotes you are wrong. The article was in a right mess, people thanked me for cleaning it up. Dr. Blofeld - 15:36, 18 July 2010 (UTC) 08:20, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
I would want to know why exactly you added this tag. What is POV-led in the article NOW? You cannot add such tags without specifying what exactly is problematic, and you are actually edit warring. I see absolutely no POV on the article, and I think the article is now in much better shape. Shahid • Talk2me 11:55, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Exactly. The article contains no POV. The only thing you could question is the claim he was one of the finest of the 20th century which is supported by three reliable sources. I strongly suggest you read WP:NPOV and exactly what it means. The article is well sourced and neutral, I, Shahid, or any admin can see this. You do not need 300 unecncylopedic quotes to be neutral. If you want to assert more criticism of his teaching style I can eleaborate on it a little but i have said that people criticised him and jOhn Williams thought he wans't a good teacher. But it is done in a way which doesn't warble on and on like your article did.
The article discusses his career and repertoire encyclopedically without any claims saying how great he was. These sentences: His teaching style is a source of controversy among some of today's players, who consider it to be dogmatically authoritarian.[12][13][14] John Williams for instance criticized his scope as a teacher and spoke of the atmosphere of fear in his classes. I have no idea why you think this article is not neutral. It is certainly not blowing his trumpet or being strongly critical. Dr. Blofeld - 15:36, 18 July 2010 (UTC) 12:12, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
No you are confusing POV/neutrality with lack of breadth of issue coverage. Its certianly not the same thing. The article was/is missing some important aspects of his work which will be written in due course, but nots not the same as it containing original research, POV and peacock words. Have a go at rewriting these issues then but please do not restore it to one zillion different quotes. This is (supposedly) an encyclopedia. An effective summary can be achieved with prose and the occasional quotes. I strongly suggest you write a condensed version of what you want to be included at User:Segovia was/Andrés Segovia. Once you've finished we can see how it can be intergrated into the article, I will read it and ensure you retain focus. But I'm telling you now. If it reads like it did before, going off the beaten track and quoting everybody who ever said anything about Segovia is will not be included. Yes information is important but it is an encylopedia in which the biggest objective is to be concise and focused which the old article seriously was lacking in. Dr. Blofeld - 15:36, 18 July 2010 (UTC) 14:16, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
PS: My active editing of this article, has for the time being ceased with the words "Let me conclude with ..."; written above. I might make small edits from time to time, or give you some suggestions (such as below); but I don't have the interest anymore, to do anything big with this article - for the time being; perhaps because I feel that many issues have been covered in the articles' old version, and that the old version was superior, and that you have taken the old version apart completely, reducing it to something that is not worth my time/effort and interest. But if you want my brief opinion on things, you're welcome to ask. Segovia was ( talk) 16:41, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
The "Criticism" section is a WP:STRUCTURE and WP:UNDUE violation. The material should be incorporated into the article, and "should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more widely held views." -- Ronz ( talk) 16:04, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
I think the Segovia article can be improved with a reception section (which gives not only the reception during his lifetime but also contemporary perspectives). The fact is that there is a lot of Segovia criticism, that a reader interested in the subject should know about. It does not mean that this criticism is truth, but it does represent many people's current perspective of Segovia, and does deserve to be handled in the article. One could mention some of the critical views, and present it as an interesting aspect of how musical tastes differ and have changed. See for example the second and second-last paragraph from
this musicweb-article. So today's player's are more accurate and strict etc. But then one could also present criticism of this modern strictness tendency -> quote from
the musicweb-article "One may listen to recordings of many of these artists and not be able to identify one player from another; musicality appears of secondary importance." So this again brings Segovia into a positive light. One could end with this quote which balances it all: "But more important than any label I can use to describe Segovia's "approach" is a certain general quality found in his playing which I think most music lovers would find almost irresistible: an intense identification with the music he is playing that breathes life and gives character to every note and phrase. Occasionally (or perhaps frequently, particularly with Bach) we may find the character inappropriate, due to changing taste and/or musicological evidence, but with Segovia the intention is always utterly sincere and deeply felt." (
"The Art of Segovia (The H.M.V. Recordings; 1927-39)" by Gregory Dinger — ARSC JOURNAL Volume XIII, No. 3 (1981), p. 116-119.)
Regarding critical contemporary views: a lot of good information can be found in an old version of the article:
see here. It really would be a shame if some of the good information therein is simply lost, since we therein find views of
Matanya Ophee, John Williams, Yehudi Menuhin, etc. Another interesting view is that by Colin Cooper (editor of Classical Guitar Magazine), who wrote: Segovia left large footprints, but they lead in a direction that is no longer of much musical significance. What modern guitarist would want to play to an audience of 3000 without amplification? Who could offer today's audiences arrangements of Haydn minuets and Bach gavottes isolated from the works of which they form a structural part? And who would dare to play them in the style that Segovia did?
Nevertheless, there is room for a large personality to leave his mark on the guitar world, as Liszt did with the piano, but I don't see one at the moment. (
source). Ultimately, failing to present contemporary views of Segovia (which often happen to be critical) is a
NPOV violation (Neutral point of view). Thus an effort should be made to present this information in a balanced, informative and interesting way. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Musical guitar prof (
talk •
contribs)
12:24, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
All the details in the early life paragraph are taken from the interview given by Segovia for the 13-part radio series Segovia!. An edited excerpt is included in the book Secrets From The Masters (Published by GPI Books) and this is the source used.
Sluffs ( talk) 01:45, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
Is there no discography, or have I missed it? — Preceding unsignedcomment added by 86.152.151.189 ( talk) 08:46, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
I agree -- it's amazing that he recorded at least in the 1940s and after and there's not a single album listed. I came to his entry today to see what some were. AllMusic.com's no help, either -- it only has since the 1980s. I found this reference ( http://www.classicalguitardelcamp.com/viewtopic.php?t=92667), but don't know how accurate it is. BlueIris2 ( talk) 20:25, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
Does anyone know how many concert tours he did in the 80s before he died? The current version of the article doesn't mention this, & it might be interesting to add a sentence or two about it. I wasn't able to find any performance videos on YouTube dating to that period (some from the 1960s). I saw him perform in Pittsburgh, PA circa 1983 when he was about 90, & it was very impressive to hear someone of that age playing so amazingly such complex pieces. Funhistory ( talk) 01:03, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 8 external links on Andrés Segovia. 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).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 17:44, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Andrés Segovia. 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:23, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
I would like to point out that whilst the quoted Jim Tosone article from 2000 states, "many professional classical guitarists were either students of Segovia or students of Segovia's students".
I feel as a student of one of Segovia's students (and very much alive at 34 years old at the time of writing) and a professional guitarist since graduating a specialist music school where I was taught by a student of Segovia's, that the wording "were" to me and to other readers, could imply past tense and that that all these professional classical guitarists could have all passed away or that the tradition has ended. I've tried re-reading this several times and can't read it another way.
May I suggest re-wording this important phrase at the start of this article to reflect a vibrant and very much current lineage? For example, "many professional classical guitarists of the 20th and 21st centuries (have) studied with Segovia or with one of Segovia's students" and then a footnote can be given with the original quote from Tosone, allowing the reader to see the original and how it was edited for clarity. What do other readers and editors think? Mattredman98 ( talk) 01:41, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
In the last half-century, there have been very many evaluations of the legacy of Segovia – one of the most influential figures of classical guitar – by musicians, academics, critics, etc., but even mention of their existence is nearly entirely absent from the current article. After 13 years since the previous discussions here, it seems more than due to reattempt a balanced coverage, because like it or not, those evaluations do indeed exist and are plenty notable. The above diff looks like a good starting point, but rather than an assorted list of quotes, hopefully it can take the form of a concentrated encyclopedic summary. Neither a die-hard nor a critic, by the way, not that it matters. Hftf ( talk) 09:08, 21 December 2023 (UTC)