Rebecca Clarke (composer) is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on August 27, 2005. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Since my university library (the University of Oklahoma) has a score for Morpheus, I can only assume it's been published. A search of the library's database shows the publisher as Oxford University Press, 2002. I have edited the article accordingly. This is a great piece by the way, for those who haven't heard it. -- Bobhobbit 05:50, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
This article demonstrates a quiet, steady POV. It seems to presume that it knows what was going on inside Clarke's head without quoting her for reference, suggests that she was only interesting when she was composing music, and ignores her family life (which was clearly important to her) to such an extent that one cannot discover when her husband died (answer: 1967).
A strong claim such as "Clarke's views on the social role of women were incompatible with any ambition to compose music in the larger forms" needs references, not to mention clarification. +sj + 06:09, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
Where is the evidence that her view of sex roles stopped her composing? There are hundreds of possible reasons? Without references, the assigning of this as the reason without reference seems to be polemical. Avalon 21:46, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
As many works have gone out of print and are now coming back in, it makes sense to list their [re]performance dates too. Also, claims such as "the Society has pushed forward recording and scholarship of her work, including several world premiere performances and recordings of unpublished material as well as numerous journal publications" need to be heavily referenced. +sj + 06:09, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
I was annoyed that this had become featured without reaching consensus, or responding to objections such as those noted above, and was about to list it on WP:FARC, but I respect mindspillage a great deal, and spent half an hour browsing other Clarke resources online. There's some *great* material out there! No reason that this article shouldn't be brilliant and detailed. A complete discography, more information about her family and Foundation, etc. are all available... +sj +
It was a little embarrassing to see a featured article where the subject was referred to about half the time as "Clark" and the other half as "Clarke". I'm going to go fix this, but it seems to me that those who nominate/select/etc. FA's ought to maybe take a quick run-through of proofreading before it goes up. MCB 06:05, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
The article mentions that "The Sonata remains a part of standard repertoire for the viola to this day", but I'm not so sure it has been, as the word "remains" implies, ever since its composition, part of the viola repertoire. From what I can gather, only recently has it been performed more often as a standard viola piece. Is that right? 201.41.195.174 ( talk) 10:26, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Is the Piano Trio for violin, viola and piano, which is mentioned in the list of compositions, the piece called Dumka? Or is it the Piano Trio mentioned under "Early Life"? It seems so, but over the course of the article, the name "Piano Trio" gives the impression of a violin-cello-piano trio, rather than a trio with a viola, and the videos in YouTube claiming to be Clarke's Piano Trio include the cello rather than the viola. What is the original setting then? It seems confusing to me. 201.41.195.174 ( talk) 10:21, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
The latest RCS newsletter states that the society was founded in 1999 rather than Sept. 2000 (before the Brandeis event) -- Mindspillage, do you have details or further info on this? Otherwise I can call Liane and ask. (I bought her Renaissance facsimiles last year...) Thanks! -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 22:40, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
How one could get "Helferich" out of the title? The title doesn't come up in the edit frame. Clarke signed a few early pieces of music "Rebecca Helferich Clarke" but she also signed a few "Rebecca Thacher Clarke" -- Helferich was not a name she really used and it's quite misleading to have it there so prominently. It is not used this way in any other published source. Thank you, Liane Curtis Clarkesociety ( talk) 00:50, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
This article could use some referencing improvements. There are places that would be helped by having additions of cites, to satisfy verifiability for the reader. If not objected to by significant contributors to the article, I would be willing to identify some of these deficient locations in the article with {{ fact}} tags. However, it might be best to address in the form of WP:FAR, and give the article a more thorough overall review. -- Cirt ( talk) 18:50, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
In regards the above, re Helferich and Thacher: have been cc'd correspondence from (claiming to be from, I should say, but I have no reason to doubt) a descendent (niece) of the composer correcting her name (and genealogy) and giving the composer's name as Rebecca Thacher Clarke (after her paternal grandmother who was a Thacher before she married a Clarke; her mother was Agnes Helferich before marrying Joseph Clarke. She was not however middle-named after her mother.) Schissel | Sound the Note! 20:09, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
I was puzzled by the claim that a composer who wrote little and published less, in an era that boasted Vaughan Williams, Bliss, Bax, Walton, Howells and Ireland (can we include Boughton, Bowen, Moeran, Alwyn etc?), was "described by Curtis as one of the most important British composers in the period between World War I and World War II". I checked the reference, and she wasn't. Curtis said that "she has been identified as among the most important British composers of the interwar years." Identified by whom? The reference to Curtis is not a reference to either a verifiable fact or an authoritative opinion, including an opinion offered by Curtis as her own (that it is Curtis's view is implied but not stated). The reference is to a piece of hearsay that is itself unreferenced, and the the reference here is misleadingly misrepresented as a reference to something more definite.
If the assertion of Clarke's importance is to stand, at least some piece of evidence, even if it is only an attribution of an opinion, is needed. Wyresider ( talk) 22:33, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
which is a much weaker claim. I'll look a little more when I have time; if nothing better is forthcoming, the claim should be toned down. FourViolas ( talk) 22:57, 7 October 2015 (UTC)...another significant British figure from the inter-war years who wrote with impressive technical command, individual expression, and a refreshingly international outlook.
The claim seems more plausible if restricted to women, so I plan to do that. Marlindale ( talk) 00:36, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
I'm puzzled that this topic is mentioned. (About Ethel Smyth it's even in the Lead.) Can someone explain why it's notable? Marlindale ( talk) 00:48, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
A bot recently brought to light that the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, cited ten times, and Grove Music Online, cited six times, each require subscriptions. So they won't be accessible to the many readers who don't have subscriptions. At least some of the cites can be replaced by cites of the 1996 Liane Curtis article in the Musical Times which is already cited and quite accessible, and there are other possible accessible sources. I'll be working from time to time on finding accessible citations. Marlindale ( talk) 23:04, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
The problem with hidden comments along the lines of "Don't add an infobox because a WikiProject doesn't like them" is that it has a chilling effect on editors who don't understand that Wikiprojects have no standing to demand that an infobox may not be added. The decision on having an infobox or not is a matter for consensus on each article, and that is policy. If there has already been a discussion on a particular article, and a consensus reached not to have an infobox, then it is helpful to have an html comment drawing the editor's attention to that (possibly archived) discussion, and I'd be very much in favour of maintaining such notes. That is, however, not the situation here, as I can find no previous discussion of an infobox on this article. It is not acceptable to have a note which effectively prevents any consensus from being discussed, as if the matter were already settled by fiat of a single editor or Wikiproject. We build this encyclopedia by allowing people to edit, not forbidding it for no good reason. -- RexxS ( talk) 19:30, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
I notice this article underwent a Featured article review in 2011. I had a quick look at it today, which uncovered some issues. It is not a bad article by any means, but it feels a bit short (though there may not be that much information on Clarke available) and the prose isn't anywhere near that of other featured articles on composers of classical music, such as Gustav Mahler, Edward Elgar or Arthur Sullivan. I probably won't take this article to FAR (at least not before I've taken a more thorough look at it and fixed what I can), but it might need some editorial attention. Toccata quarta ( talk) 15:18, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
So we have a wikilawyering editor who wants us to discuss whether interesting, important, and well-sourced information should be removed though they have not provided any argument for removing it. The edit summary "previous was sufficient" is not a sufficient or even logical argument and thus citing WP:ONUS "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content" is a rude way of forcing others to guess why they're disputing the content. -- Espoo ( talk) 18:51, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
Rebecca Clarke (composer) is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on August 27, 2005. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Since my university library (the University of Oklahoma) has a score for Morpheus, I can only assume it's been published. A search of the library's database shows the publisher as Oxford University Press, 2002. I have edited the article accordingly. This is a great piece by the way, for those who haven't heard it. -- Bobhobbit 05:50, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
This article demonstrates a quiet, steady POV. It seems to presume that it knows what was going on inside Clarke's head without quoting her for reference, suggests that she was only interesting when she was composing music, and ignores her family life (which was clearly important to her) to such an extent that one cannot discover when her husband died (answer: 1967).
A strong claim such as "Clarke's views on the social role of women were incompatible with any ambition to compose music in the larger forms" needs references, not to mention clarification. +sj + 06:09, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
Where is the evidence that her view of sex roles stopped her composing? There are hundreds of possible reasons? Without references, the assigning of this as the reason without reference seems to be polemical. Avalon 21:46, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
As many works have gone out of print and are now coming back in, it makes sense to list their [re]performance dates too. Also, claims such as "the Society has pushed forward recording and scholarship of her work, including several world premiere performances and recordings of unpublished material as well as numerous journal publications" need to be heavily referenced. +sj + 06:09, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
I was annoyed that this had become featured without reaching consensus, or responding to objections such as those noted above, and was about to list it on WP:FARC, but I respect mindspillage a great deal, and spent half an hour browsing other Clarke resources online. There's some *great* material out there! No reason that this article shouldn't be brilliant and detailed. A complete discography, more information about her family and Foundation, etc. are all available... +sj +
It was a little embarrassing to see a featured article where the subject was referred to about half the time as "Clark" and the other half as "Clarke". I'm going to go fix this, but it seems to me that those who nominate/select/etc. FA's ought to maybe take a quick run-through of proofreading before it goes up. MCB 06:05, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
The article mentions that "The Sonata remains a part of standard repertoire for the viola to this day", but I'm not so sure it has been, as the word "remains" implies, ever since its composition, part of the viola repertoire. From what I can gather, only recently has it been performed more often as a standard viola piece. Is that right? 201.41.195.174 ( talk) 10:26, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Is the Piano Trio for violin, viola and piano, which is mentioned in the list of compositions, the piece called Dumka? Or is it the Piano Trio mentioned under "Early Life"? It seems so, but over the course of the article, the name "Piano Trio" gives the impression of a violin-cello-piano trio, rather than a trio with a viola, and the videos in YouTube claiming to be Clarke's Piano Trio include the cello rather than the viola. What is the original setting then? It seems confusing to me. 201.41.195.174 ( talk) 10:21, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
The latest RCS newsletter states that the society was founded in 1999 rather than Sept. 2000 (before the Brandeis event) -- Mindspillage, do you have details or further info on this? Otherwise I can call Liane and ask. (I bought her Renaissance facsimiles last year...) Thanks! -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 22:40, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
How one could get "Helferich" out of the title? The title doesn't come up in the edit frame. Clarke signed a few early pieces of music "Rebecca Helferich Clarke" but she also signed a few "Rebecca Thacher Clarke" -- Helferich was not a name she really used and it's quite misleading to have it there so prominently. It is not used this way in any other published source. Thank you, Liane Curtis Clarkesociety ( talk) 00:50, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
This article could use some referencing improvements. There are places that would be helped by having additions of cites, to satisfy verifiability for the reader. If not objected to by significant contributors to the article, I would be willing to identify some of these deficient locations in the article with {{ fact}} tags. However, it might be best to address in the form of WP:FAR, and give the article a more thorough overall review. -- Cirt ( talk) 18:50, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
In regards the above, re Helferich and Thacher: have been cc'd correspondence from (claiming to be from, I should say, but I have no reason to doubt) a descendent (niece) of the composer correcting her name (and genealogy) and giving the composer's name as Rebecca Thacher Clarke (after her paternal grandmother who was a Thacher before she married a Clarke; her mother was Agnes Helferich before marrying Joseph Clarke. She was not however middle-named after her mother.) Schissel | Sound the Note! 20:09, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
I was puzzled by the claim that a composer who wrote little and published less, in an era that boasted Vaughan Williams, Bliss, Bax, Walton, Howells and Ireland (can we include Boughton, Bowen, Moeran, Alwyn etc?), was "described by Curtis as one of the most important British composers in the period between World War I and World War II". I checked the reference, and she wasn't. Curtis said that "she has been identified as among the most important British composers of the interwar years." Identified by whom? The reference to Curtis is not a reference to either a verifiable fact or an authoritative opinion, including an opinion offered by Curtis as her own (that it is Curtis's view is implied but not stated). The reference is to a piece of hearsay that is itself unreferenced, and the the reference here is misleadingly misrepresented as a reference to something more definite.
If the assertion of Clarke's importance is to stand, at least some piece of evidence, even if it is only an attribution of an opinion, is needed. Wyresider ( talk) 22:33, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
which is a much weaker claim. I'll look a little more when I have time; if nothing better is forthcoming, the claim should be toned down. FourViolas ( talk) 22:57, 7 October 2015 (UTC)...another significant British figure from the inter-war years who wrote with impressive technical command, individual expression, and a refreshingly international outlook.
The claim seems more plausible if restricted to women, so I plan to do that. Marlindale ( talk) 00:36, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
I'm puzzled that this topic is mentioned. (About Ethel Smyth it's even in the Lead.) Can someone explain why it's notable? Marlindale ( talk) 00:48, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
A bot recently brought to light that the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, cited ten times, and Grove Music Online, cited six times, each require subscriptions. So they won't be accessible to the many readers who don't have subscriptions. At least some of the cites can be replaced by cites of the 1996 Liane Curtis article in the Musical Times which is already cited and quite accessible, and there are other possible accessible sources. I'll be working from time to time on finding accessible citations. Marlindale ( talk) 23:04, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
The problem with hidden comments along the lines of "Don't add an infobox because a WikiProject doesn't like them" is that it has a chilling effect on editors who don't understand that Wikiprojects have no standing to demand that an infobox may not be added. The decision on having an infobox or not is a matter for consensus on each article, and that is policy. If there has already been a discussion on a particular article, and a consensus reached not to have an infobox, then it is helpful to have an html comment drawing the editor's attention to that (possibly archived) discussion, and I'd be very much in favour of maintaining such notes. That is, however, not the situation here, as I can find no previous discussion of an infobox on this article. It is not acceptable to have a note which effectively prevents any consensus from being discussed, as if the matter were already settled by fiat of a single editor or Wikiproject. We build this encyclopedia by allowing people to edit, not forbidding it for no good reason. -- RexxS ( talk) 19:30, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
I notice this article underwent a Featured article review in 2011. I had a quick look at it today, which uncovered some issues. It is not a bad article by any means, but it feels a bit short (though there may not be that much information on Clarke available) and the prose isn't anywhere near that of other featured articles on composers of classical music, such as Gustav Mahler, Edward Elgar or Arthur Sullivan. I probably won't take this article to FAR (at least not before I've taken a more thorough look at it and fixed what I can), but it might need some editorial attention. Toccata quarta ( talk) 15:18, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
So we have a wikilawyering editor who wants us to discuss whether interesting, important, and well-sourced information should be removed though they have not provided any argument for removing it. The edit summary "previous was sufficient" is not a sufficient or even logical argument and thus citing WP:ONUS "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content" is a rude way of forcing others to guess why they're disputing the content. -- Espoo ( talk) 18:51, 17 April 2021 (UTC)