Jump to content

Talk:Pierre Boulez/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Conducting

I've added some features regarding Boulez conducting in the end of this biography.83.249.63.75 11:54, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Murail on Boulez

I would love if someone could/would discuss this in the article:

"What you have in serial music, of course, is a dialectical discourse; a statement is made, then negated; then the product of those is negated. Boulez, in his early aesthetic writings, is frankly Marxist in describing this."
http://www.sospeso.com/contents/articles/murail_p2.html

I don't know enough about Boulez, and I've never heard his music, so I won't find it anytime soon...Hyacinth 19:31, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

Hyacinth: Could you say more of what interests you about the comment? In my opinion, Tristan Murail, who is a younger composer that reacted against the musical ideas of Boulez and others, is trying to paint Boulez and the Darmstadt composers as being close-minded and tied to the ideals of the former Eastern Bloc. Murail says this in part because he felt restricted by the popularity of the serial method, which Murail rejected, and partly because there was a tendency to view atonal music (what Murail might call music without teleology) as music of freedom- music against totalitarian regimes. The Marx comment undermines this idea. In certain Boulez writings, he does have a certain dialectal, binary sort of way of looking at sides to cultural clashes.

Riceklang 19:51, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

and I have tried to do some work

I have attempted to flesh out some of the history and ideas that people have alluded to in this article. There are a few errors- if you take issue with anything, I'd first refer you to the Paul Griffiths text on music after World War II, which summarizes many issues discussed here well, and also in detail. There are a few instances where I removed things, and I'll discuss those here:

"From the 1950s he experimented with aleatoric music (incorporating the use of chance), and struck up a correspondence with John Cage. However, the two fell out over differing views of what the function of using chance was."

Boulez never actually wrote any aleatoric music. Aleatoric music is when a performer is presented with a series of options, and randomly asked to choose between them. For example, "do A, B, or C in any order, for 30 seconds." I don't know of any Boulez scores that do that. John Cage, as far as I know, didn't work with aleatoric music, either. John Cage did work with with what he called chance music, or indeterminate music. Chance music is when the composer's decisions are made by chance, as in his "Music of Changes", where he decided each pitch and duration by tossing coins and consulting the "I Ching". Interderminate music is where musical events happen unintended, for example in his "4'33"", in which the performer is tacet, and the piece is the unintended sounds made by the audience during the composition.

I've read the Boulez/Cage correspondance, and what they were discussing at the time was using process to make compositional decisions. They were in disagreement, but until both of them fleshed out their ideas a little more, they didn't realize it. Cage wanted the process to remove choice from the composer, and Boulez wanted the process to create something ultra-rational. But at the time Cage was doing "Sonatas and Interludes" for Prepared Piano and Boulez was doing his "Second Sonata", and they didn't see that they were going in opposite directions.

The next part I removed is:

"Despite teaching at Darmstadt for several years, Boulez quickly distanced himself from the severe rigidity of many composers associated with the post-war serialist movement. His letters to his friend and colleague Karlheinz Stockhausen, which have so far only received fragmentary publication, reveal that long before his German contemporary--as early as 1953-- Boulez was advocating an end to literal serial determination of every element in musical composition. He advocated instead a more fluid approach to composing which would allow several types of organisation and structure to interact freely to create more naturally musical and also more ambiguous kinds of form and expression."

I tried to flesh this out and explain more of what is being said. The general tendency of what is said here is true- Boulez did distance himself from total serialization. However, I tried to restate this for a few reasons: First, total serialization isn't so rigid as it sounds, and nor did Boulez speak so forcefully against it. Serialization has a reputation for being mathematica and inflexible, because it sounds rigorous in some way, but the composer still decides what the pitches and durations are, what order to put them in, and when they happen, which isn't that much different than any other piece. In fact, Boulez has continued to use some variation on these techniques, but with 'loopholes', so that he can fluidly stop and start doing something else. My point is that it was more like a course correction than that Boulez did a 180 degree turn and wrote different music. I think his writing about changing courses might even be before the Stockhausen correspondance, in 1952, when he was finishing "Structures I". I hope that I did justice to this idea in the way that I fleshed it out, but please comment on this if you feel this is not the case.

Riceklang 19:51, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

On Boulez, Cage, and Aleatory Music

There are quite a few scores by Boulez in which the performer is given different options to choose from. In the first half of Domaines the clarinet part is on six pages and the soloist can decide in what order they will be played, in the second half the conductor has to make the choices. The middle movement of the third piano sonata consists of short fragments ("points" and "blocks") connected by lots of small arrows, each indicating a possible trajectory the pianist can take through the score. Other aleatoric pieces are Eclat and Rituel. David Sneek 08:02, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

David: I was speaking a little too generally. Having sections of music and not setting the order of them is not aleatory, but rather is mobile form. For example, in Karel Husa's "Music for Prague 1968", there are sections where Husa writes just a cell of music, for example, C#, D, F#, and says "play in any order, as fast as possible". This is a classic example of aleatory music- the end result is usually a cluster of a flurry of notes. The "Threnody for the Victims of Hiroshima" of Penderecki is another good example of aleatory music.

On the other hand, Stockhausen touched off this idea of having no set order to movements or sections of music in one of his piano stücken (I can't remember which one it is off the top of my head). This became known as mobile form (not mobile, as in 'able to move about', but rather those little things that dangle varied objects above a baby). That score is set up the same way that the third piano sonata of Boulez is, with arrows connecting different blocks of music (floating systems).

Scores of Boulez from the 70's like Eclat and Rituel are harder to find. Have you looked at them? Do they contain choices as in the Husa piece or are they the same as the Third Sonata?

Riceklang 17:10, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Riceklang - I'm not sure you are correct in the way you define aleatoric music. It was Boulez himself who advocated the word aleatory - notably in the article Alea from 1957, which discussed the aesthetics of the third sonata - and he certainly intended it to refer to "controlled chance", where a performer can choose between different possibilities that have all been foreseen by the composer. David Sneek 18:32, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

David: I looked at some of the literature; the Boulez article, the Griffiths "Modern Music" and the Havard Dictionary of Music-

In the Boulez article, he's talking about things that are going on as he is writing. You're certainly right that he does intend it to mean 'controlled chance', but it doesn't feel to me like he's trying to define words and create precedents of nomenclature so much as talk about what is going on right then. In other words, I don't know if we can say from this that he advocates the use of that term.

It seems like we're in conflict over details of nomenclature: The HDM lists "aleatory music" as an article in the sense you're using the word- anything that has to do with chance, indeterminacy, open form or mobile form, etc. However, this article also talks specifically about "[works], which consist... of a number of separate segments that have to be 'assembled' by the players. The terms open form and mobile form have since been applied to works of this type." (pg. 28-29).

Also, the other literature agrees with you in that the broadest category of these kinds of techniques is called aleatory. However, there are subcategories of this aleatory music, which include mobile form/open form (which refers to the specific phenomenon we're discussing- segments of composed music that can be played in various orderings), indeterminate music, and chance music (separate techniques that I described above). I'm not able to find literature to back me up in that within this broad category of aleatory, that the sort of choice I described with the Husa piece is 'aleatory'. However, I know that this distinction has been made to me in talks that I have had with composers, and in music history classes, things like that. This does seem important to me on some level, because what Boulez was doing in the 70's was really far away from what was going on with John Cage or Earle Brown in the 70's, and also there are significant differences between these various subcategories of aleatory, would you agree?

It seems best to me to use mobile form, rather than aleatory, because it's seems like a term tailor made for what is going on in the Third Sonata, but I can see some reason to inflect an article with the language of Boulez's important article on the subject, and to use aleatory for that reason.

What is it that you would suggest for the article? Are you trying to tie it in with other wikipedia articles, on aleatory music, for example? It seems easy enough to tie the deleted section on Cage back into the article, especially in the paragraph on Boulez's experimentation, since it mentions Rituel, and the Third Piano Sonata. I'll reinsert this material, but wait for a response from you beforehand, for example, perhaps I should write something more specific than that aleatory music 'incorperates the use of chance', since chance is also one of those subcategories of the broader 'aleatory'?

Riceklang 20:51, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Riceklang - Mobile form certainly seems the perfect term to describe a composition like Domaines. But I'm not completely sure it is exactly right for the third sonata; in that piece the fragments are often so short that it's perhaps more the musical syntax, rather than the form, that changes with every performance. Anyway, like you said, these are details of nomenclatura and it's true that the meaning of these words is hardly fixed (appropriate, I suppose, in this context). So let me try to write a few sentences for the article instead:
From the 1950s, beginning with the third piano sonata, Boulez experimented with what he called "controlled chance" and he developed his views on aleatoric music in the articles Aléa and Sonate, que me veux-tu?. His use of chance, which he would later employ in compositions like Eclat, Domaines and Rituel, is very different from that in the works of for example John Cage. While in Cage's music the performers are often given the freedom to improvise and create completely new sounds, in works by Boulez they only get to choose between possibilities that have been written out in detail by the composer - a method that is often described as mobile form.
Would this be acceptable to you? This way it's clear that other views and uses of aleatory music exist. David Sneek 21:55, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

David: That seems fine to me; by all means, go to it.

Riceklang 22:42, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I was away for a while, but now I've added it. I also removed "Boulez had never been a composer of electronic music", because he did in fact compose a few electronic works in the 50s (Poésie pour pouvoir and the soundtrack for Symphonie mécanique, both withdrawn). David Sneek 07:48, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

This article needs work

I've been going through and wikifying things, and also trying to just clean up. I found a lot of subjective material in the article, which I tried to improve. However, there was a small, difficult to comprehend, and a little subjective paragraph that I didn't know what do with, so I deleted it. Here it is, in case anyone wants to help try to fix it.

"Boulez' increasing awareness through the fifties that almost none of his composer colleagues could at the time understand the depth of musical structure to which he aspired led him to withdraw increasingly from exchange with other composers and perhaps contributed also to his increasing interest in conducting." Smedley Hirkum 05:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

That's definitely too subjective. To say he was "aware that none of his colleagues could understand" what he was trying to do is a bit pretentious. It isn't that Boulez wouldn't have put it that way at the time (i.e. his famous quote from Eventuellement), but as a paragraph in a biography it comes off as a very biased.
It is true though that he had a great deal of contact with other composers in the early fiftes which he did withdraw from as his own goals became more focused. I wouldn't say the others failed to understand him, but rather that he had a strong difference of opinion on the direction art should take (which would remove this bias). Boulez did seem to be worried about others understanding him, though: why else write "Stocktakings", or "On Music Today"? I can come up with more details about this stuff later once I get some reading out of the way. Rainwarrior 20:50, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Gontier pictures link, linkspam?

This link was removed with the comment "linkspam". How is a collection of pictures of the composer linkspam? The page isn't selling anything, and the pictures are great. What's the problem? - Rainwarrior 18:53, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

There are two problems here. The first is that this was added by an anon IP, so we cannot be sure that it was added by someone unconnected with the site. As I'm sure you know, people cannot link to their own external material here. The second is that this was added to the "References" section, but is not cited in the article body. The bibliographic citation should go in a "Further reading" section, be used to cite article material, or just be deleted, while the external link should go in "External links" once we're sure the site's creator wasn't responsible for adding it. CRCulver 19:01, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Whether or not the person who originally added the link is affiliated with the website, I have vouched for the link's validity, so that isn't an issue any more. (Unless you think I am affiliated with it... but maybe you are affiliated with a competitor? Who knows? This isn't a rule anyway, it's just a guideline. If it was a rule there would have to be a better way to determine who is afilliated with what.) I didn't notice it was in the wrong place. I'll move it to the external links section where it belongs. - Rainwarrior 19:06, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Pronunciation

Perhaps a note about pronunciation is in order. I initially assumed that his name was pronounced "bou-lay", but I've heard radio announcers (who have otherwise impeccable pronunciation with foreign names and words) say "bou-lezz". Sure enough, googling for "pierre boulez pronunciation" turns up some authoritative-looking pages that say it's "bou-lezz", not "bou-lay".

I don't know if Wikipedia has a standard way of writing the pronunciation of potentially confusing words/names, but if anybody else is as easily confused as me, this might be helpful to note.  :-)

  • This might be a good idea; for a while, after I bought my first Boulez conducts Wagner LP in the 80s, I thought too that Boulez rhymed with "voulez". The best way to do this would probably be to add a version of his name in IPA. Like this, I think: [bu:lɛs]David Sneek 09:03, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I believe the name should rhyme with "voulez" (being French), but that Pierre insists it does not. Either that or it is not French (my name is mispronounced Russian and my mother's last name, Sather, is mispronounced by her immediate family as Saather rather than Say-ther). Hyacinth 00:37, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
David: Ah, great thinking to use the IPA! Looks close. But according to the IPA article, [bu:lɛs] looks like it would be pronounced 'bou-less', which is not how I've heard it said. I thought the final consonant was voiced: [bu:lɛz].
Also, it might be useful to also have the obvious-but-wrong pronunciation next to it, for comparison, as in: "[bu:lɛz], not [bu:leɪ]".
I don't know the best place for it. The page for Goedel puts it in brackets after the name, but before his dates. The page for El Cid puts it later in the article, surrounded by //. (I have no particular preference.) Comments?
I have a CD on which French pianist Pierre-Laurent Aimard, who is kind of a Boulez specialist, gives an introduction to the first Sonata, and I just listened carefully to his pronunciation: to me the final consonant does sound like a Voiceless alveolar fricative ;-) Googling to make sure I found this, with the correct pronunciation on mp3, but unfortunately the computer I'm working on right now has no sound. Maybe you or Hyacinth can check if it's voiced or not there. About the place: if we're just going to put the IPA in there, I think we should put it right behind the name, if we want to explain that final "-ez" in French is usually pronounced "ay", but Boulez is the exception, the end of the first paragraph seems best. David
That page says it's "boo-lehz", which to me means voiced (like "z", and especially because they say earlier on the page to pronounce "z" as "z"). But right above it is "behr-lee-ohz", which I've always known as ending with an unvoiced consonant. (And the recording for Berlioz definitely sounds like an unvoiced final consonant to me -- behr-lee-ohsss.) The recording for Boulez ... wow. I put it on loop and listened to it for a while, and I really can't tell if he's trying to voice it or not. It kind of starts out sounding sharper like a "z", but then ends more muffled like "ss". To my ears, it sounds like he's saying "boo-lezss".
So, bonus points for finding a recording, but now I'm as confused as ever. Perhaps we should just call Pierre on the phone and ask him to say his name.  :-)
You're right [zss] seems closest, which is a bit confusing... So I asked for help.
Unfortunately, the speaker in that clip is not French. I am fairly sure that the French pronunciation is [bu'lɛz]. It is the same pronunciation that is given in the [Encyclopedia], which seems to be pretty accurate with most other names. I don't know of any French word or name that has a "z" that is pronounced "s". Saying that it is a mixture of z and s seems to me to be overcomplicating things. Of course, in English, we use the long u, represented with a colon, so we could write it [bu:'lɛz], as suggested above. I'll go ahead and put up a pronunciation, but I'm not French either, so if anyone knows better, please change it. Lesgles 12:30 16 Dec. 2004
Thanks, now we can move on to another syllable!
Hello, Im french, stumbled upon help. and it comes naturally to me : "boo-lehzzz" (dunno the number of z's if it's important for IPA pronunciation) . The mp3s you listen at are wrong because I recognize the english accent spoken with. Sorry! ;-) To conclude, and IMHO the final consonant is a Voiced alveolar fricative. this is quite byzarre because I do not agree with the exceptions like, by example : "Darius Milhaud" it is not "yo!" (double-"l") but rather "lo" (simple-"l" as here for Milhaud) etc. etc. Star Trek Man 20:44, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
All of you who doubt the pronunciation of Boulez, bear in mind the precedent set by Hector Berlioz!
For what it's worth: the third movement of Berio's Sinfonia requires a speaker to thank the conductor, and on the Boulez recording, the speaker thanks "Boul-ez," not "Boul-ay." Just to add further evidence...Cyrus Sixguns

I have a recording of Boulez' "Glenn Gould Prize Concert" (24/11/2002) taken from the CBC radio broadcast of it, in which the host Eric Friesen calls him Boul/ez/ many times, though just once while speaking French he said Boul/ey/ (I think that was a slip). The then governer general Adrienne Clarkson also spoke, calling him Boul/ez/. Boulez also spoke (and conducted) at this concert (he did not say his own name). - Rainwarrior 19:42, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

From a native speaker of French and lifelong inhabitant of France: I have never heard Boulez's name pronounced [bule], always [bulɛz]. S.Camus 13:00, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Boulez's valet partner?

At the very end of the "Life and Music" section, irrelevant to the rest of the paragraph is written: His German partner, Hans Messmer, is traditionally introduced as Boulez's "valet".

Does this assert that Boulez is a homosexual? And if it does, why is not done in clearer language? Furthermore, why is it not in some other (more releavant) paragraph?

In my own readings I have found the occasional speculation on his sexuality, but I have yet to see any definitive assertions on it. The sentence quotes a source which I have not read (but will look up). Does anyone have any thoughts on this?

(I notice as well that we have placed him in the "Gay musicians" category. Do we actually have more evidence than this one source?)

Rainwarrior 13:04, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

After checking the source, it turns out that it was misquoted, and its meaning has been severaly distorted. If anything can be said about Pierre Boulez's sexuality it is that he has never married. If he is heterosexual or homosexual, there is no known evidence of either. I'll leave it to someone else's discretion whether these facts are worth mentioning, but for now I am removing the "Gay musicians" categorization, and the false information it is based on. Rainwarrior 23:07, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Just so you can see what I mean, here's the actual quote: "New York readied itself for the aloof, balding Boulez, who kissed no-one and kep inscrutably apart. 'The Iceman Conducteth,' warned the New York Times. ... 'I don't think he has any close friends,' said one of his oldest associates. He never married. He had an Austrian companion, Hans Messmer, who occupied a separate aparetment in the same block and was sometimes introduced as his valet." (Lebrecht, Norman. The Maestro Myth. Simon and Schuster, 1991. Page 188.) This passage is an essay on the "aloofness" of Boulez, not an assertion of homosexuality. Rainwarrior 23:52, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
I restored the text, and changed the wording from "German lover" to "Austrian companion", to match the source. Readers can make of it what they wish. -Will Beback 00:25, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Again, I believe that this sentence is irrelevant, and furthermore the quotation is still quite incorrect. "His Austrian companion, Hans Messmer, is traditionally introduced as Boulez's "valet"." is still different from the source, and makes a different suggestion. I quoted above its context and it can be seen in that context that the point of making that statement is to show how Mr. Boulez has had very few close friends.
If you insist on quoting from this source, the sentence "I don't think he has any close friends." would be infinitely more appropriate, as it carries that spirit (and the letter) of its original intent quite clearly. Instead you have taken this particular quote and removed it from its context (in addition to altering it), perhaps to deliberately insinuate something about Mr. Boulez's sexuality, on which there is really not enough information to warrant any such insinuation.
If you want to make a paragraph about his personal life (which should belong to a separate paragraph than the one this quote is currently attached to), the actual intended message of the source is fairly accurate, from the other biographical information I have read about the man: It is true that he has never married. It is also true that many find him "distant", but you really must stop insisting on using this particular misquotation from an already rather liberally colourful source as "The Maestro Myth", and find something from an actual Pierre Boulez Biography, of which there are several.
I would appreciate some input on this from others. Rainwarrior 05:30, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Joan Peyser, in her book Boulez: Composer, Conductor, Enigma, tried to dig into the personal life of Boulez. According to her Messner (rather than "Messmer") is employed as a valet and she does not suggest he means more than that to Boulez, even though she is very gossipy. David Sneek 20:04, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Rainwarrior- it seems like a tenuous statement. I understand the drive to create scholarship that documents the achievements of people of the LGB community, and this might be a sort of justification for writing a comment like this in an article. However, based on this evidence, I don't think that we have grounds enough to make the statement, and bad scholarship doesn't help anyone. Riceklang 07:53, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Just what is meant by the word "companion"? -Will Beback 00:05, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Companion:
1 : one that accompanies another : COMRADE, ASSOCIATE; also : one that keeps company with another
2 obsolete : RASCAL
3 a : one that is closely connected with something similar b : one employed to live with and serve another
I don't think that in the above context it is possible to read much more into it. David Sneek 10:05, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
This is not really a reputable source, but even if it was, consider what it says. "Closeted gay" means that there is no proof. If it was proven, he would not be in the closet. Boulez has never publically stated that he is homosexual, and no man has publically claimed to have had a homosexual relationship with him. Because one writer (who is not even writing directly about Boulez, but of Busotti) suspects he is a "closet homosexual" does not make Boulez worthy of appearing on the "Gay musicians" list. If this list is important to you, you should want it to be accurate and reputable, which it cannot be if you insist on including "closet" gays on the list. (And since you seem to be seriously interested in this list, I might point out that John Cage hasn't been added to it, though unlike Boulez, his homosexuality is well documented. See Merce Cunningham.) Rainwarrior 16:51, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Why is glbtq.com not really a reputable source? We have one source ( [1]) stating that he is gay. Do you have any sources to dispute this claim?
Actually, being closeted means attempting to keep a secret. It has nothing to do with proof. I encourage you to read the Wikipedia article, the closet, and related topics (such as outing, which is relevant in this case).
I invite you to edit the John Cage article's categories appropriately. However, be prepared to verify this (and, if your standards are to prevail, make sure you use more than an article about Merce Cunningham).
Hyacinth 11:41, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
I was referring to the article, not the particular website. An article about someone else that mentions Boulez in passing isn't really a reliable source for information about Boulez's sexuality. If it was known, it would appear in biographical sources. (I think it's notable that glbtq.com does not actually have an article on Boulez.) My standard isn't "multiple articles", it is that the assertion must be made directly, and with supporting argument. Can you see that there is no argument about Boulez in the Busotti article? It is not reputable as a source for Boulez's sexuality because it contains no argument for it, only an assertion. This is what bothered me about the original statement in the Wikipedia article. If the man is known to be gay, it should say it outright, and it should have the details which make it tangible.
And, yes, I wasn't using the word "closeted" accurately. I was thinking of this specific case, and not the more general case of all closeted homosexuals. I don't think this affects my specific argument, however. Rainwarrior 17:41, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
All good points. Hyacinth 08:34, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm glad we have an understanding then. I don't know if this is the case, but sorry if I come across as a bit of a jerk at times. I often have tone-of-voice problems when using the internet; my choice of words has more than once gotten me into trouble that would not have occured had it been a face-to-face conversation. Rainwarrior 20:54, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
No problem. You commented on the content and not on me. You responded reasonably and with reason to my arguments. I hope to find a better source someday, but Boulez obviously has a big closet. Hyacinth 09:53, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
I believe that Boulez and Cage had a relationship in the 50s. I was told this by an American composer who knew both. Of course I can't verify this, but I thought I'd add it just in case anyone finds anything more substantial relating to it. 90.205.92.86 (talk) 06:51, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Composer project review

I've reviewed this article as part of the Composers project review of its B-class articles. You can read my detailed review on the comments page. The article is B-class, but is primarily missing personal biographic detail (or mention that such material is likely unavailable due, e.g. since Boulez guards his privacy). If you have comments or questions on the review, please leave a message here or on my talk page. Magic♪piano 19:25, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

POV

Boulez is also an articulate, perceptive and sweeping writer on music.

The qualifiers for this statement of fact should be removed. MKV 17:11, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

What are you trying to say? (1) that this is a statement of fact, but there are qualifiers in the surrounding material that should be removed; (2) the entire statement is POV, and needs substantiation, otherwise should be deleted altogether; or (3) the qualifying adjectives "articulate", "perceptive" and "sweeping" should be removed, leaving just "Boulez is also a writer on music."? If the first, I'm afraid I don't see such qualifiers; if the second, I would say that this is so well-established a fact that it needs documenting about as much as the statement "the sun rises in the morning" but, nevertheless, it would be simplicity itself to document; if the third, then the same thing applies.--Jerome Kohl 19:53, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Simply that his writing should not be described in such a way to qualify it as perceptive or not, etc., unless referenced in a way that this is shown. In this case it is far from an obvious and foregone conclusion (as the sun, etc.) as he is primarily a composer and not an author of literature. I myself am probably more familiar with the composer than the general public yet I have no preconceived notions about his writing. MKV 02:03, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for clarifying your position, that it is the word "perceptive" you are objecting to. It shall, of course, be so referenced. As I said, this is simplicity itself. I had rather thought you might have been objecting to "sweeping", which has been hurled at Boulez as an accusation by critics such as Douglas Jarman, who took offense at Boulez's remarks concerning Mr Jarman's specialist subject, Alban Berg.--Jerome Kohl 07:05, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
P.S.: I have added five citations in support of this word. I trust that answers your objection?--Jerome Kohl 07:32, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

The sentence immediately after the one discussed is incoherent. Maybe another sentence that was accidentally deleted mentioned writings that would justify the "others" beginning the second sentence in that paragraph. Jack O'Flaherty —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.249.215.141 (talk) 00:13, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

You are quite right, Jack, well spotted! Going back to August 2007 in the edit history, I find that the missing sentence was "Some articles—notably the notorious "Schoenberg is Dead", (1952) were deliberately provocative and veered towards polemic." Before restoring it, however, I should like to know why and when it was removed, since an editor may have offered a reason for having done so.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 01:04, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Not a pianist

Boulez is not a pianist -- certainly not in the same sense that he is a composer and conductor. See [removed]. (Also note the lack of any reference to his giving any concerts or recitals in the article!) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.127.68.167 (talk) 21:43, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Everything is relative, of course. Arguing along these same lines you could say he is not a composer, in the same sense he is a conductor. While it is true that he has not performed in public for a very long time, he did, for example, premiere his Third Sonata in 1957, and also recorded, together with Yvonne Loriod, the second book of his Structures for two pianos. I am a little puzzled why you bring this up in a negative context, since as you say the article does not even mention his activities as a pianist. Are you afraid that someone in the future might try adding some information about this, and wish to forestall such a move?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:14, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
A YouTube video is usually not a reliable source (and also a copyvio). As noted by Jerome Kohl, Boulez recorded some of his piano music with Yvonne Loriod, a pianist of whom Messiaen said, "For her, everything is possible." I'll restore "pianist" in the lead. Toccata quarta (talk) 03:44, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
If a source is required, I might suggest Paul Sacher's “Gruß an Pierre Boulez”, in Pierre Boulez: eine Festschrift zum 60. Geburtstag am 26. März 1985, edited by Josef Häusler, 8–11 (Vienna: Universal-Edition, 1985), ISBN 3702401776. On p. 8 Sacher addresses Boulez: "Seit langem bist Du für mich und viele andere die überragende Persönlichkeit und bedeutende schöpferische Erscheinung im Musikleben dieser Zeit als weltberühmter Komponist und Dirigent, Pianist, Denker über Musik, Theoretiker, Schriftsteller, Propagator Neuer Musik, Veranstalter von Konzerten mit zeitgenössischer Musik, Profesor am Collège de France, Gründer und Leiter von IRCAM".—Jerome Kohl (talk) 03:53, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
If Boulez did in fact perform and record his own piano music (I wasn't aware that he did, and the article didn't mention it), then on that ground it is fair to refer to him as a pianist. However, I want to note that the statement that "a YouTube video is usually not a reliable source" is ridiculous here, because the YouTube video in question showed Boulez himself saying he wasn't a pianist. (Also, I don't know what you mean by "copyvio". Maybe the YouTube uploader violated copyright, but I'm not that person; I don't see how my link could be a violation.) The claim that he is not a pianist is thus in an entirely different category of plausibility from any claim that he is not a composer (which would be absurd, as he is one of the major composers of the postwar era). So no, the "everything is relative" response doesn't work. 24.127.68.167 (talk) 10:02, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
You make one very good point which in fact I have already acknowledged: the article itself makes no mention of his activities as a pianist, and it should do this. The lede section is supposed to summarize the main points in the article, which is why inline citations are not usual in that section. As for copyvio, linking to Youtube videos that are clearly in violation of copyright may in itself be regarded as copyright violation. The fact that someone else stole the material originally does not excuse others' use of that material. Next, Boulez himself "saying he wasn't a pianist" is insufficient on three grounds: (1) it might just be modesty, as if to say, "I am not on the level of Pollini" (remember, Boulez failed the piano entrance exam at the conservatory when he first applied), (2) the time-frame is imprecise: if he in fact used the past tense, then it could mean he is a pianist now, but was not formerly; if he used the present tense, then it could mean he used to be a pianist, but has since given it up—which is consistent with the facts as I understand them, (3) it is a first-party source, and so would be rather like accepting a convicted felon's statement, "But I'm innocent!" as proof of a miscarriage of justice. Finally, my using "everything is relative" to extend to his reputation as a composer was meant as a joke. Mathematically, I think we could say that the proportion of his activities as pianust, composer, and conductor would be in the neighbourhood of 1:300:500. However, we ought not leave out his activities as "thinker about music", "music theorist", "writer", "advocate of new music", "organizer of concerts of contemporary music", "professor at the Collège de France", and "founder and director of IRCAM", all of which come after "composer", "conductor", and "pianist" in Sacher's list, quoted above (and my apologies for the typo in "Professor", which was my fault, not Sacher's).—Jerome Kohl (talk) 20:16, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Grawemeyer Award

Boulez won the 2001 Grawemeyer for Sur Incises, not Incises. A quick fix. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.165.119.37 (talk) 20:06, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Just in case people don't know:

  • "Music and Musicians" – gossip on the artistic and political intrigues behind the scenes in the world of classical music. Written by "Lunchtime O'Boulez": Lunchtime O'Booze has been a resident Private Eye journalist since the magazine's earliest days; Pierre Boulez, French avant garde composer and conductor, was a controversial choice as principal conductor of the BBC Symphony Orchestra in the early 1970s. In an earlier incarnation, the column published scurrilous and unfounded gossip about the London Symphony Orchestra, which resulted in a significant libel pay-out.)[1] The title of the column is taken from a now-defunct British magazine which was a sister publication of Books and Bookmen.
Noted by The Guardian. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:03, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ James, Brian (28 February 1987). "The orchestra that opened up". The Times.

What exactly does this mean?

"During the time that Boulez was testing these new ideas, those colleagues who had never been entirely comfortable with the prominence of a rigorous musical language, such as György Ligeti, had brought a convincing musical counter-argument to Boulez's musical ideals.[citation needed] In a poetic twist, Boulez had moved from peerless respect for Le marteau sans maître to seeming defeat with Pli selon pli, which sets poems by Stéphane Mallarmé, including one about the tripping impotence of a swan, unable to take flight from a frozen lake.[citation needed]"

Apart from not being cited, the following faults with this passage are:

1) Misses the mark entirely on Ligeti's articles in die Reihe (I presume these are the ones this writer is referring to) 2) The notion of "peerless respect" is a contradiction in terms. 3) To say nothing of how exactly Pli Selon Pli is a defeat (and how is Le Marteau a triumph? In whose opinion? This does not belong in an encyclopaedia).

Ergo, I am proposing to "be bold" and rewrite this, with sources from published writers on the subject (Martin Iddon, M.J. Grant, Whittall et. al) Knucmo2 (talk) 19:23, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

What are you waiting for? Permission to be bold? Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 20:15, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
I don't know who made the edits and I didn't want to upset anyone without a rationale. As for being bold, obviously my dry sense of humour doesn't come off as well in text-only format. I'll make a start at some point. Knucmo2 (talk) 20:34, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
I don't know who made those edits, either, but I believe they have been in place for quite a long time. Correcting this is long overdue. You did not mention the odd phrase, "testing these new ideas", which is another prejudicial POV statement, not to mention being hopelessly vague. In one sense, Boulez never stopped "testing new ideas", while in another sense such "testing" cannot apply to a score once it has been published, unless it is regarded as a failure.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:28, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Pierre Boulez. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:16, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Infobox

A more general discussion is now at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Composers.

Persondata has been deprecated, I tried to bring it back and visible in which I might call a persondatabox or pdbox. After improvements (not by me), it was reverted. A pdbox (called identitybox by Brianboulton) has been accepted for classical composers, a featured article such as Percy Grainger, or Beethoven after community consensus, also Bach, Handel and many others. Boulez is not only a classical composer but a French person, a pianist, a writer. Please discuss. Those opposing: please show a different way to show the data of birth and death together at a glance, which is standard for printed encyclopedias. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:46, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Bolded by me after the topic was changed by someone else. I am not interested in a box. I am interested in making the persondata (name(s), honorific titles, date and place of birth, and of death, and why the person is notable) accessible, that means templated and visible. A box is one way, the easiest way, and the one mostly used in Wikipedia. If there's a better way, wonderful, but I don't see it yet. The average reader will not find out that a place of death is somewhere down in the article or on Wikidata. Open for suggestions. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:14, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
The topic hasn't changed, only the section header. It was about an infobox, and still is about an infobox, regardless of how you try and change the name. The suggestions are the same as always: beef up the lead to show the relevant information in a form that gives context, and take on board that the place of death is in the vast majority of cases, utterly meaningless when trying to get a handle on who a person was or what he did in his lifetime. - SchroCat (talk) 08:38, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Thoughtless and ridiculous comments like this that go into the gutter of incivility are not needed. Inflaming a situation with such insults is going to do nothing constructive at all. I do not try to get anyone to 'dance to my tune', any more of less than anyone suggest you AGF in your approach. – SchroCat (talk) 11:52, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
I'd strongly advise anyone to avoid trying to dance to any of Boulez's tunes. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:42, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
"please show a different way to show the data of birth and death together at a glance". Try reading the first line: those dates are right there, up front – "Pierre Boulez CBE (French: [pjɛʁ bu.lɛːz]; 26 March 1925 – 5 January 2016) was a French composer, conductor..." Looks like it's been there the whole time, which is standard for printed encyclopedias. – SchroCat (talk) 22:08, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Well, to be fair, the date of death was added only recently. Otherwise it does seem to be clearly and prominently displayed.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:16, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
@Schrocat: No need to bold ;) - @both: "data" is not "date", - I miss places of birth and death, standard in printed encyclopedias, all supplied by Persondata until recently but no more. Also: there's a big difference between a prose date and a templated date which is good for rendition in other languages and sorting. Some users understand, - this is the edit I like second-best. Btw, I saw a solution which we might consider in the Italian Wikipedia: they have a template bio, which has all these pairs of parameters and values, but it translates not to a box but to the first sentence of the lead. Seen on it:Maria Carbone. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:03, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
That is a very interesting template. Thank you for bringing it to our attention here. I can see one difficulty that would have to be addressed: That template displays the places of birth and death within the brackets containing the corresponding dates, whereas the current English Wikipedia guideline at WP:OPENPARAGRAPH states: "Birth and death places, if known, should be mentioned in the body of the article, and in the lead if relevant to the person's notability, but they should not be mentioned in the opening brackets of the lead sentence alongside the birth and death dates." Either the template or the guideline would need to be changed, if this were to be used on English Wikipedia.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 00:36, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
That's a way to approach and perhaps go. Why not have the persondata visible as I proposed in the meantime? - Unrelated: I liked to see the composer's face on the Main page, under "Courageous" ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:14, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Because there is no need. The dates are visible for readers and the awful WikiData is there for computer readers. Adding an Infobox is an unnecessary step in this articles development. – SchroCat (talk) 07:29, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

On what basis is it only that classical composers do not have an infobox when every other biography does? Also worth bearing in mind that Boulez was more than just a composer. GiantSnowman 08:16, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

"every other biography" does not have an infobox, so it's a deeply flawed rationale to add one here. The fact he is a composer is neither here nor there. The lead does a good enough job explaining who and what he is, and does so in a manner to give context and background. – SchroCat (talk) 08:23, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Pull the other one - you know as well as I do that infoboxes are actively encouraged on every biography. Just see recent FAs Hugh Beadle and Abe Waddington. Why not here? GiantSnowman 08:46, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
I'm pulling nothing here, and perhaps you need to readjust what your saying. "infoboxes are actively encouraged on every biography": crass nonsense, I'm afraid. Show me the policy or guideline that says that. There are stacks of FAs, let alone GAs, that don't have IBs, in and out of the classical music sphere, and there is absolutely no compunction to add one at all. Perhaps you should be pulling the other one? – SchroCat (talk) 08:50, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Please highlight a recent non-classical biography FA which did not have an infobox. GiantSnowman 08:55, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Oh, have I missed something here? Was Boulez a non-classical musician?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 09:00, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
John Gielgud, Ralph Richardson, PG Wodehouse and Laurence Olivier. Please highlight a guideline or policy that states IBs are actively encouraged on every biography. – SchroCat (talk) 09:05, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
I said recent - not 2014. Interesting to note that on Gielgud the infobox was removed by you. Why such fervent opposition to something that is a) so widespread and b) provides a useful snapshot of the article? GiantSnowman 09:09, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
All four are recent (or are you trying to narrow the field even further?! Should I only have picked from 2016?) I am not "fervent" in my opposition, and don't oppose them at all (for the record I am a big fan of them when they are used properly). I just don't take a knee-jerk "every article must have one" stance – and my stance is a reflection of the MoS, rather than those who try and unthinkingly force them on every article, regardless of whether they are advantageous or a positive step. Again, please highlight a guideline or policy that states IBs are actively encouraged on every biography. – SchroCat (talk) 09:17, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
How were the Boulez/Gielgud infoboxes being used improperly? WP:INFOBOXUSE says it is up to consensus for every article (here it is only you opposing) and as I work about 95% on biographies and rarely see them deliberately without infoboxes that is sufficient evidence. GiantSnowman 09:22, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Sufficient evidence for what? IBs are not an automatic inclusion that have to have a consensus for removal: no article is 'born' with an IB automatically included. They should, along with things like images, quotes, and any other constituent, be considered as to whether it is a positive inclusion. In some it is not. The editors of the very recent FA Stefan Lochner thought not. I'm not sure what you are talking about when you say "sufficient evidence", but thanks for bringing up INFOBOXUSE, which states "The use of infoboxes is neither required nor prohibited for any article". I'm also unsure of your judgement when you say I am the only one opposing; Jerome Kohl has removed the otiose box and clearly opposed in the sentences above, and I don't know why you have ignored him! – SchroCat (talk) 09:33, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose infobox. This infobox was particularly useless. The reason that Persondata was deprecated is because it's not needed. The reasons why this infobox was not helpful include: (1) The box emphasizes unimportant factoids, and all the facts it presents are stripped of context and lacking nuance, whereas the WP:LEAD section emphasizes and contextualizes the most important facts. (2) The most important points about the article are discussed in the Lead, or adequately discussed in the body of the article, so the box is redundant. (3) It takes up valuable space at the top of the article and hampers the layout and impact of the Lead. (4) Frequent errors creep into infoboxes, as updates are made to the articles but not reflected in the redundant info in the box, and they tend to draw more vandalism and fancruft than other parts of articles. (5) The infobox template creates a lot of code near the top of the edit screen that discourages new editors from editing the article. (6) It discourages readers from reading the article. (7) It distracts editors from focusing on the content of the article. Instead of improving the article, they spend time working on this repetitive feature and its coding and formatting and arguing about its content. See also WP:DISINFOBOX.

Oppose an info box on this article for the reasons highlighted just above. Giant Snowman seems to be talking his/her usual bollocks. CassiantoTalk 11:15, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Support an info box on this article. Provides useful structure. But thanks, Cassianto, for raising the tone of the discussion. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:23, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

My pleasure. Anything's an improvement when it comes to these discussions. CassiantoTalk 12:30, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
I didn't think that being able to talk bollocks was gender specific? But what is consistent, I guess, is the talking of bollocks where you're concerned. CassiantoTalk 12:30, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Given that we have never interacted as far as I remember I suggest the only one who is talking bollocks here is you. GiantSnowman 12:44, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
No? I seem to remember you talking similar bollocks here. I'm sure there there are other diffs involving infobox discussions elsewhere, but I can't be bothered to waste my time trawling through them. CassiantoTalk 12:56, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
You mean when I simply asked why there was no infobox, and said I found them useful. Your bollocks threshold is clearly stupidly low *rolly eyes emoji* GiantSnowman 13:22, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
When it comes to infobox discussions, I'm afraid it is, yes. CassiantoTalk 13:30, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Support to have at least the data Persondata supplied for Pierre Boulez, the link to his compositions, as a compromise, but I like the slightly extended version by GiantSnowman even better. I wonder if those opposing even looked at what we are discussing. Show me fancruft in one of the two versions, for example ;) - If we don't add a useful thing for fear it might be abused we better go home, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:39, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose info-box – disappointing that this chestnut has come up again. Info-boxes are useful to the reader when a subject has a lot of statistical information – eg cabinet posts held; dioceses served in; runs scored – but are unhelpful clutter for typical arts biographies such as this. All the important info should be summarised in the lead, and it makes Wikipedia look rather amateurish to repeat the same info immediately alongside. – Tim riley talk 11:41, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Support infobox on this article. (Although it has nothing to do with Persondata, which is/was invisible.) I've checked the infobox that had been added [2], and it provides lots of great information, easily read, all in one place and at a glance, in a way that is not at all immediately comprehensible in the lede or the body text. I think the image should be expanded to fill out the box, as usual, however. Softlavender (talk) 13:31, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
The lead also contains "great information" which is not only more comprehensive than the bulleted points found in the infobox, but is better written. But perish the thought that someone might have to read it. Fancy having to read an encyclopaedia! CassiantoTalk 13:56, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
"Different presentations serve the needs of different readers". Well an infobox doesn't serve my needs as a reader, so your point is moot. CassiantoTalk 15:53, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose infobox for reasons I have stated elsewhere. In articles such as this the infobox contributes nothing that is not already included in a well written lead. The infobox causes confusion/irritation to readers who find they are reading the some facts twice at the top of the article. Jack1956 (talk) 20:16, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Yes. For me, "born in..." usually features at the start of the second paragraph and the place of death should come right at the end of the last paragraph. CassiantoTalk 21:37, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Is this an accepted part of the "musical experts' rubric on why composer infoboxes are forbidden"? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:43, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
I don't know. I'm not part of that project and I don't much care for projects who dictate to the rules. I compare each box on their own merit and whether they are a benefit or not. CassiantoTalk 22:38, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
I guess you could always go and add in the place of birth and death here, as a kind of "hopeful prophylactic"? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:40, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose infobox (since I have been named informally in this capacity and it has been noticed that User:GiantSnowman is ignoring me, presumably in the vain hope that I will not weigh in with an opinion). User:SchroCat has succinctly put the case against an infobox in this case, and I share User:Tim riley's disappointment that this has become necessary to debate yet one more time, despite the clear case against infoboxes in cases like this one.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:26, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes, and of these eleven editors, how many (from either side) have ever contributed to the article? I thought the idea in such cases was to obtain consensus from the editors active on the article. What is disappointing is this tendency for such debates to draw the most vehement opinions from editors who have never once before shown any interest in the subject.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:10, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
You want me to strike my !vote as I have only shown any interest in Boulez since he died, yes? (Or at least only contributed here after he died). Martinevans123 (talk) 22:16, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Not at all, dear Martin. You are one of the few exceptions. I am not just speaking off the top of my head—I have in fact checked the edit history back to 2004.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:21, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Ah-ha, so any new editor who appeared here wouldn't be allowed to own (or part-own) the article, yes? And while those who oppose here are just defending the purity of the subject matter, through long acquaintance and diligent editing, the supporters are mostly just "info-box warriors" with no real interest in the subject? Editors who simply seek consistent article formats across the encyclopedia are to be ignored? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:26, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
@Jerome Kohl: - I've not ignored you. AGF! GiantSnowman 12:25, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
(ec, you type much faster than I do ...) You, Jerome (most!), Martinevans, Bmclaughlin9 and I, - if it matters. Does it? I made Patrice Chéreau GA ;) - how many points for that? - We should inform readers of different interests, instead. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:30, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
How lovely Gerda! He has a lovely infobox. But then he was only a lowly opera and theatre director, filmmaker, actor and producer. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:38, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
The infobox was already there when I turned to the article, - when he died. I should also mention that the GA work was teamwork, so of whatever ownership points, I deserve only half ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:43, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
@Martinevans123:: Your three points are essentially correct, only I would remove the heavy spin you have put on them: (1) New editors, especially those unfamiliar with the subject, ought to respect the work done by those who have gone before them; (2) Some of those who both oppose and support here are amongst those editors who have a long investment in this article; similarly, while assuming good faith, many on both sides do appear to be just infobox warriors; (3) Editors who simply seek consistent article formats across the encyclopedia should be reminded of paragraph 3 in the lead section of the Manual of Style: "Style and formatting should be consistent within an article, though not necessarily throughout Wikipedia". Contrary to what Giant Snowman implies about a mille back up on this page, Wikipedia guidelines (in contrast to some editors and groups of editors) do not encourage or discourage infoboxes. The guideline specifically says, "The use of infoboxes is neither required nor prohibited for any article. Whether to include an infobox, which infobox to include, and which parts of the infobox to use, is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article."—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:32, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Oh dear, I'm sure heavy spin is the last thing we want here. Thanks for your very fulsome reply. And there was me thinking the word own was about as popular round here as the proverbial "pork-pie at a Bar Mitzvah." Martinevans123 (talk) 22:06, 8 February 2016 (UTC) "reeeee-spec mon, I feel so ire!"
  • Support infobox here. A master of form and structure, providing Orientations beyound the basic meaing of the word. deserves a structured lede. If we want to profit from the Frecnh article, lets start with using an infobox. Polentarion Talk 22:37, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pierre_Boulez/Archive_1&oldid=1137085714"