This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||
|
will cite sources properly in future including ophee, peter ingliss website and youtube video examples of the notorious 1984 toronto guitar festival performance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.43.210.23 ( talk) 21:14, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
I am quite sure that it is mentioned on the original 1981 LP cover that Yamashita wrote his guitar arrangement based on Ravel's orchestra scores, not on Mussorgsky's original piano scores for Pictures.. (Julio Alves, juliokw1@gmail.com) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.20.202.70 ( talk) 21:37, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Did Yamashita sleep with the author's wife? PenguinJockey ( talk) 03:07, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Wow finally I'm able to respond to you directly. Please consider creating a user-account, since your floating IP address is really a pain, if I try to reach you. Thanks for your thoughts. Nicely worded and even polite. Good stuff! However I'll try and politely say that your use and interpretation of youtube borders on the delirious. hahah joking of course. But seriously: you're not honestly suggesting we go ahead and use youtube comments to form an opinion, about what we should think about an artist, are you?! My opinion (try and live with it!) is that Yamashita is an exemplary modernist curiosity. A guy who is so obsessed with technique, that his interpretations of Bach and Sor (and almost everything else) does not stem from musical/emotional/expressive intentions, but instead from the desire to impress and thrill through technique. Now you (and many others) are welcome to be thrilled by Yamashita....! but I am not. And I'm glad to say that there are numerous quotes that support my view. I propose this: stop deleting the negative reviews, because I will not delete the positive ones, that you add (or might decide to add in the future). A neutral point of view is one that includes not only what YOU think about Yamashita (you're welcome to add verifiable positive reviews), but also what others think about Yamashita. Thus I maintain that negative reviews have a right to stay on the page: they are verifiable... and they reflect other existing views, which I happen to share. Deal with it or go elsewhere! Whosafraidofthedark ( talk) 23:05, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Well, I can see where you're coming from, but I will ask you to consider the possibility, that backing up your opinions with reference to youtube is rather weak. It's like saying that McDonalds is healthy food, because thousands of people purchase that "food" every day. (That misses many points, such as: e.g. McD's is relatively cheap. McD's is easily available and very visible. McD's uses targeted marketing concepts. etc)
At this point in time, and discussions with you, I'm not ready to compromise. It's just not necessary yet. As I've said: I won't be deleting any positive reviews that you decide to add. I think that's fair. But trying to mold wikipedia into a duplicate, of what most comments on youtube show (by deleting verifiable/citable newspaper/published reviews), is weak for an encyclo-wiki-pedia. Youtube comments are no good source. (You say that Yamashita "is enormously popular amongst the majority of listeners". I'd say it like this: Youtube seem to show that, of the people who have commented on Yamashita's videos, most seemed to be positive towards his playing.)
So please: don't underestimate a reader's ability to form a OWN opinion. Reviews are not truth, but simply someones opinion. I don't see anything bad about including reviews (where these reviews stem from serious reviews of newspapers, or published guitar-specific pages). A reader will make up his/her OWN mind, which may agree with a certain review (the reviewer's opinion), or not. Moreover I believe that the reviews that I've selected, will have the added benefit of causing the reader to think, instead of blandly excepting everything blindly: It may become clear (or in your case perhaps, astonish) that some people are not so favourable about Yamashita's brutal technique-driven way of playing; and I think the reviews show this. I'm not bashing Yamashita. I'm including reviews of opinions, that I value and agree with.
By the way: please consider creating a wikipedia account, since your use of an IP address (which constantly changes), makes it difficult for people to reach you. Whosafraidofthedark ( talk) 21:48, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi there! Good stuff! The article is coming along nicely! I have the following suggestions:
Whosafraidofthedark ( talk) 18:04, 24 February 2009 (UTC) (PS: Villa-Lobos was a better musician and guitarist, than many people think... Try follow up on that as best you can, instead of hunting down Yamashita's violent/brutal destruction of brazilian Villa-Lobos) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whosafraidofthedark ( talk • contribs) 18:12, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
It looks like I'm a little late for the consensus review. This is my first look at the article, and I think it still seems biased. Wikipedia is not in business to provide reviews. The article should present facts about the guitarist's life and accomplishments and not get side-tracked into attempts provide a balanced viewpoint. There should be no viewpoint i n the article, i.e. facts and neutrality. Pkeets ( talk) 20:52, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
The first line of this article says, "His technique and expression are considered somewhat controversial." Being as this appears in the very first line, the implication is that this alleged "controversy" is, or has been a significant part of this performer's career.
Yet I find no further mention of any "controversy" in the entire article, and only one source referenced for the statement.
That's it? Really? I mean, c'mon, if the standard for being controversial is that ONE reviewer wrote ONE non-flattering article about the artist, then we would have to consider pretty much EVERY artist, living and dead, "controversial".
I suggest that the article needs a section which describes the nature of the controversy, and provides a few more supporting references. Failing that, the comment about the artist's technique, etc. being "controversial" should probably be removed, as it has not been supported.
BTW: the full text of the one article cited about the controversy is only available by subscription. Perhaps provide a more open source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.92.174.105 ( talk) 21:56, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Kazuhito Yamashita. 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) 02:44, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||
|
will cite sources properly in future including ophee, peter ingliss website and youtube video examples of the notorious 1984 toronto guitar festival performance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.43.210.23 ( talk) 21:14, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
I am quite sure that it is mentioned on the original 1981 LP cover that Yamashita wrote his guitar arrangement based on Ravel's orchestra scores, not on Mussorgsky's original piano scores for Pictures.. (Julio Alves, juliokw1@gmail.com) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.20.202.70 ( talk) 21:37, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Did Yamashita sleep with the author's wife? PenguinJockey ( talk) 03:07, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Wow finally I'm able to respond to you directly. Please consider creating a user-account, since your floating IP address is really a pain, if I try to reach you. Thanks for your thoughts. Nicely worded and even polite. Good stuff! However I'll try and politely say that your use and interpretation of youtube borders on the delirious. hahah joking of course. But seriously: you're not honestly suggesting we go ahead and use youtube comments to form an opinion, about what we should think about an artist, are you?! My opinion (try and live with it!) is that Yamashita is an exemplary modernist curiosity. A guy who is so obsessed with technique, that his interpretations of Bach and Sor (and almost everything else) does not stem from musical/emotional/expressive intentions, but instead from the desire to impress and thrill through technique. Now you (and many others) are welcome to be thrilled by Yamashita....! but I am not. And I'm glad to say that there are numerous quotes that support my view. I propose this: stop deleting the negative reviews, because I will not delete the positive ones, that you add (or might decide to add in the future). A neutral point of view is one that includes not only what YOU think about Yamashita (you're welcome to add verifiable positive reviews), but also what others think about Yamashita. Thus I maintain that negative reviews have a right to stay on the page: they are verifiable... and they reflect other existing views, which I happen to share. Deal with it or go elsewhere! Whosafraidofthedark ( talk) 23:05, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Well, I can see where you're coming from, but I will ask you to consider the possibility, that backing up your opinions with reference to youtube is rather weak. It's like saying that McDonalds is healthy food, because thousands of people purchase that "food" every day. (That misses many points, such as: e.g. McD's is relatively cheap. McD's is easily available and very visible. McD's uses targeted marketing concepts. etc)
At this point in time, and discussions with you, I'm not ready to compromise. It's just not necessary yet. As I've said: I won't be deleting any positive reviews that you decide to add. I think that's fair. But trying to mold wikipedia into a duplicate, of what most comments on youtube show (by deleting verifiable/citable newspaper/published reviews), is weak for an encyclo-wiki-pedia. Youtube comments are no good source. (You say that Yamashita "is enormously popular amongst the majority of listeners". I'd say it like this: Youtube seem to show that, of the people who have commented on Yamashita's videos, most seemed to be positive towards his playing.)
So please: don't underestimate a reader's ability to form a OWN opinion. Reviews are not truth, but simply someones opinion. I don't see anything bad about including reviews (where these reviews stem from serious reviews of newspapers, or published guitar-specific pages). A reader will make up his/her OWN mind, which may agree with a certain review (the reviewer's opinion), or not. Moreover I believe that the reviews that I've selected, will have the added benefit of causing the reader to think, instead of blandly excepting everything blindly: It may become clear (or in your case perhaps, astonish) that some people are not so favourable about Yamashita's brutal technique-driven way of playing; and I think the reviews show this. I'm not bashing Yamashita. I'm including reviews of opinions, that I value and agree with.
By the way: please consider creating a wikipedia account, since your use of an IP address (which constantly changes), makes it difficult for people to reach you. Whosafraidofthedark ( talk) 21:48, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi there! Good stuff! The article is coming along nicely! I have the following suggestions:
Whosafraidofthedark ( talk) 18:04, 24 February 2009 (UTC) (PS: Villa-Lobos was a better musician and guitarist, than many people think... Try follow up on that as best you can, instead of hunting down Yamashita's violent/brutal destruction of brazilian Villa-Lobos) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whosafraidofthedark ( talk • contribs) 18:12, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
It looks like I'm a little late for the consensus review. This is my first look at the article, and I think it still seems biased. Wikipedia is not in business to provide reviews. The article should present facts about the guitarist's life and accomplishments and not get side-tracked into attempts provide a balanced viewpoint. There should be no viewpoint i n the article, i.e. facts and neutrality. Pkeets ( talk) 20:52, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
The first line of this article says, "His technique and expression are considered somewhat controversial." Being as this appears in the very first line, the implication is that this alleged "controversy" is, or has been a significant part of this performer's career.
Yet I find no further mention of any "controversy" in the entire article, and only one source referenced for the statement.
That's it? Really? I mean, c'mon, if the standard for being controversial is that ONE reviewer wrote ONE non-flattering article about the artist, then we would have to consider pretty much EVERY artist, living and dead, "controversial".
I suggest that the article needs a section which describes the nature of the controversy, and provides a few more supporting references. Failing that, the comment about the artist's technique, etc. being "controversial" should probably be removed, as it has not been supported.
BTW: the full text of the one article cited about the controversy is only available by subscription. Perhaps provide a more open source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.92.174.105 ( talk) 21:56, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Kazuhito Yamashita. 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) 02:44, 9 January 2018 (UTC)