Talk:Elliott Carter

Elliott Carter
Elliott Carter
Genres	Classical, Neoclassicism
Occupation(s)	Professor, composer
Years active	1938 – present

Biography: Musicians

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians (assessed as Mid-importance).

Composers

This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Composers, a group of editors writing and developing biographical articles about composers of all eras and styles. The project discussion page is the place to talk about technical and editorial issues and exchange ideas. New members are welcome!ComposersWikipedia:WikiProject ComposersTemplate:WikiProject ComposersComposers articles

Classical music

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical music, which aims to improve, expand, copy edit, and maintain all articles related to classical music, that are not covered by other classical music related projects. Please read the guidelines for writing and maintaining articles. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.Classical musicWikipedia:WikiProject Classical musicTemplate:WikiProject Classical musicClassical music articles

Criticism

A great many musicians and listeners consider Elliott Carter to be the most overrated composer perhaps in all history. I think it would be appropriate to at least mention that his compositions have been subject to criticism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.123.90.250 (talk) 19:09, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled

I don't have a written source for the final quote about changing notes: I heard him say it in a composition seminar in the late 1980s. Antandrus 16:58, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Can you site the seminar? Just treat it as a source so it is in some way verifiable. Also, you're paragraphs are a little too positive, for instance the use of the word "glow". Hyacinth 00:29, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Too hard to cite--I can't remember the date. I took out the line so I wouldn't have to. As anyone who has studied his works in score knows, there are notes you just can't figure out based on the "system" he sets up, so I just said that. It was interesting though to hear him say that he just changes notes arbitrarily when they don't sound right, and that got a good chuckle out of a room full of composers. So I'll leave it here in "talk" in case anyone cares. Antandrus 02:08, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thanks! Hyacinth 02:14, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

It is a great quote, if you come across the date, time, place, and name of the conference I would welcome the addition to this article, Precompositional, and Musical analysis. Hyacinth 02:16, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

As I dig through boxes of stuff from grad school, if I come across it I'll do as you suggest. Interesting how I heard a sigh of relief from various composers who were all trying to compose with "systems" --here was the "Master" giving them permission to pull out those little burrs without having to justify them! Still makes me laugh. I wrote my doctoral comprehensive on Mirror on Which to Dwell, and even though I won't say it in the article, I tell you that darn thing DOES glow from within. Peace, Antandrus 02:29, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Photo?

This could really use a photo. S.dedalus 01:13, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have a photo released from Boosey, how do I get it on the page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Musicsignifica (talk • contribs) 20:35, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links

Edit comment when the cleanup-spam tag was removed: "I see no spam here, all very informative links" -- not all informative links should be included on Wikipedia pages. See WP:EL and WP:SPAM for guidelines on external links. -- JHunterJ 15:16, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a specific link that you think does not qualify according to those guidelines? Skarioffszky 21:22, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the word "SPAM" thrown around far too much on Wikipedia--none of the links were spam by any means. That doesn't mean they all necessarily belong on the page; I would keep the ones which link to the publishers (since where to acquire scores is difficult to find and important) but not all the rest. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 02:43, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OTOH, I would move the publishers' links to the publishers' Wikipedia articles, and have only wikilinks to the publishers' articles here. I don't think "where to acquire scores" is an encyclopedic concern. -- JHunterJ 01:31, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it depends on the composer. Some publisher's websites are the best sources for current information about the composer, upcoming performances, newly released scores, etc., which is additional useful information which will not be in the WP article even at the FA level. For just about any deceased composer, I agree that the publisher website is unlikely to have new information, and shouldn't be linked. I disagree with the guideline on external links on one point: I think that an EL which we wouldn't want in a FA article (e.g., a biography at a publisher's website) is acceptable until such information is incorporated into the article. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 22:21, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the link to carter100.com. Don't know what happend there, but it's not related to Elliott Carter anymore. -- Kausalitaet (talk) 10:27, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It appears from the archive history at http://www.archive.org/web/web.php that the Carter Centenary page was taken down at the end of the centenary year (2008). Evidently, someone else later re-created that same URL with the unrelated content. I have substituted a link to the archive, which includes the sublinked pages but not the original images.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:37, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox

First off, let me say that I know that people who work on composer articles hate having infoboxes in their articles. I can understand why, the gross oversimplification of particulars and the general repetition of the facts in the article. What I believe it does do, however, is give a reader a nice introduction to the topic. Large chunks of text, especially like the ones in the article as it currently stands, are daunting to people unfamiliar with the subject and may turn them away from reading the article. Images and infoboxes give them at least a little bit of context before they read the article. I know it's pretty split, but I've prepared one for Elliot Carter. I promised Antandrus that I wouldn't post it in the mainspace, so I'm posting it here so for review. I modeled it after Charles Ives, but of course it doesn't look half as good without a picture. Anyhow:

Aside from the obvious fact that certain classes of articles must have infoboxes, and that Elliott Carter is too important a figure to ignore, a clearer explanation of my thoughts on Infoboxes can be found on my user page. Thanks, and please fix any mistakes/tell me what to do so that I can help improve this important article. Canadian Paul 01:14, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like the infobox. SethTisue 12:40, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like it too, but I don't like 'Professor' as occupation. It makes 'composer' look like his secondary career. Also, 'Neoclassicism' as a genre? I don't think that's right. Neoclassicism isn't a genre, it's a specific style within the Western Classical tradition. As I understand it, the term 'genre' relates to a specific category of musical work, such as the string quartet, symphony, opera, etc. In fact the article on Music Genre has it all wrong, as it addresses style rather than genre. 90.205.92.18 (talk) 21:36, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An infobox is just as much a statement as is a paragraph, and if any of the following had been stated in prose I would equally have removed them as misleading. "He has been active from 1938 to the present" - the reader might gather that he was first active in 1938. What does that mean? At best it is unreferenced. Was 1938 used because the first work listed in the "selected works" section is dated "1938-39"? What about Tarantella for men's chorus of 1936? Are there no earlier student works? Was he inactive as a student? "His genre is classical" - so the same genre as Palestrina, Bach, Mozart and Beethoven? If it was labelled "tradition" rather than "genre" I would be more sympathetic. "His genre is Neoclassicism" - only his early works are described as neoclassical; his double concerto for example would probably shock any listener who was expecting neoclassicism. That only leaves for the infobox his name, his dates and the occupation "composer" which is really no infobox at all - it said more than that in the perfunctory lead sentence (which I have expanded). --RobertG ♬ talk 17:23, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this; thank you. Indeed your arguments encapsulate quite well the arguments previously given against the use of infoboxes for composers project-wide. Also thank you for taking out "composer of classical music" from the lead; I'd like to remove this phrase from leads of other composer articles as well, perhaps replacing it with "in the classical tradition" where it might be essential to make such a distinction clear. Thanks, Antandrus (talk) 17:33, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nadia Boulanger

The previous version of this article stated that Carter "went to Paris to study with Nadia Boulanger (as did Aaron Copland, George Gershwin and many other American composers)". Although Gershwin did go to Paris, Mlle Boulanger refused to teach him. In any case, Copeland and Gershwin are not relevant to an article on Carter, and might create an entirely false impression of some kind of stylistic affinity between them and Carter. If you are going to list her other American pupils, why not include Virgil Thompson and Philip Glass and all the others? Much better not to list any at all - people who are interested can look at her article. --RichardVeryard (talk) 16:58, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

File:ElliottCarter.jpg Nominated for Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:ElliottCarter.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests July 2011 What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 05:34, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

sources

I wrote much of the music section and the source was The Music of Elliott Carter by David Schiff

http://www.amazon.com/Music-Elliott-Carter-Photos-Included/dp/0801436125/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1373159734&sr=8-1&keywords=schiff+elliott+carter

Incomplete sentence?

"He set works of Elizabeth Bishop, John Ashbery, Robert Lowell, William Carlos Williams, Wallace Stevens, Ezra Pound, and Marianne Moore."

This sentence appears to be incomplete. As I am not certain of the writer's intent I bring this up for consideration as to whether it is or not. Thoughts?THX1136 (talk) 15:27, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looks complete to me ("set" is the verb) -- could be rewritten or clarified if you like -- "He set to music poems by ..." Antandrus (talk) 16:10, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd support that. Toccata quarta (talk) 11:48, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To add to article

To add to this article: mention of the Amphion Foundation. Website 173.88.246.138 (talk) 23:37, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

External links - 2

I don't understand the major removal of Interviews and External links including web archives of scores and the like, for the composer, under the Edit summary 'clean up external links'; looks like useful material here, CactiStaccingCrane Swliv (talk) 18:47, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Swliv, if so, I think that either the information should be cited (as a primary source), or turn into inline notes for placing next to the mentioned scores. However, I would have to admit that most of the links there is not of high-quality, and if a reader want more info it can be found using search engines anyways. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 23:55, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To me that's the function of External links: Material that is within the scope but beyond the current reach of the body of that article. WP:EL gives "further research that is accurate and on-topic" as one of its guidelines. With subheads I would put the deleted Interviews and Listening sections within the External links section.Swliv (talk) 17:42, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of whether the interviews and such are warranted or not, a fundamental rule of EL sections is that they "should be kept to a minimum"—and before there were almost certainly too many. I have no issue adding back a few (3–4 maybe) but restoring the entire section is unproductive. Aza24 (talk) 19:41, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aza24 The 'minimum' phrase is in one of five 'Important points to remember' but not surprisingly 'too much' appears nowhere in that policy article. There was no Edit summary on the original wholesale removal and now there are still no better suggested criteria for trimming one from what was there much less all but three or something. If there were multiple from one website, they could be narrowed accordingly per suggestion in the policy article -- good idea to check -- meanwhile I say restore them all. No reason good or bad's been given for any removal yet. Thanks for the 'Thanks' for my last one CactiStaccingCrane but I don't see any restoration yet. Swliv (talk) 15:51, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]