Talk:Maurice Ravel/Archive 1

Archive 1

Is it commercial or isn't it

Sorry I'm new on Wikipedia. I hope I'm on the right place here. Two days ago I added a Weblink to the Maurice Ravel article. The link opens the Website from the little German music label Troubadisc. Sure, a label produces music and as an service you can find an CD's catalogue but the Website offers more. The founder of the label are classical musicans. They attend to a very specialized sometimes unknown part of classical music. You can find biographies of composers and artists, articles, discussions and news. The user Makemi deleted the link from this site. He meant, that I only added it as an advertising link. I doesn't think so, whats your opinion?--Ron.kappler 10:04, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Makemi's decision. Though it's nice to see a good record label run by people who care about music, it doesn't provide very much additional information beyond the scope of this article for people who want to know more about Ravel, which is what external links on Wikipedia are for. Please see the guidelines at Wikipedia:External links for more information. Thanks, Mindspillage (spill yours?) 18:20, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Royalties?

Can someone explain how he is still earning royalties if he died almost 70 years ago?

Well, he personally isn't, obviously, but his estate is. Copyright continues in force until its expiration regardless of whether or not the original copyright holder is alive. If my memory serves me right, in the US a copyright holder used to get 28 years plus one extension for a total of 56 years. Then it went to 75 years after the first performance/appearance, and just recently Congress coddled Disney some more by making it 95 years. Then there are lots of international ramifications and agreements that countries follow or ignore, depending. I know that Copland etc. never got royalties from performances in the Soviet Union because the Russians didn't sign the international copyright agreements until I think 1976 (and even then it was not retroactive there).

Mind you, I am far from an expert in copyright but this is what I have always understood. --Wspencer11 (talk to me...) 12:21, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Modes

The article mentions that when Ravel uses major and minor scales, he treats them modally. This itself isn't objectionable, but then claims that the major scale is the same as the Myxolidian mode. AFAIK, this is incorrect. The Myxolidian mode is what you get if you start on the fifth degree of the major scale, just like the minor/aeolian scale is the sixth degree. The mode which is the same as the major scale is the Ionian mode. 155.212.199.126 13:39, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely true. Here's what the article currently says:

When he uses major or minor scales, he treats them modally (the [Mixolydian is correct; please do not change it; *read* the next sentence for explanation] Mixolydian and Aeolian modes, respectively). As a result, there are virtually no leading tones in his output.

Any major scale has a leading tone, so if Ravel avoids using leading tones then he cannot be using a major scale. The author's note (included above) is inaccurate. I will leave the passage alone for now, awaiting futher comments, but the passage as it stands must be rewritten, and I will do so once anyone else has weighed in. --Wspencer11 (talk to me...) 14:07, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

The passage is worded badly. Ravel's music lacks leading tones, because he indeed preferred the Mixolydian and Aeolian modes; maybe the original author believed that he was deliberately substituting those two modes for the major and minor scales (that may indeed be correct). A major scale without a leading tone is Mixolydian. Now there may be better ways to word this; I've reverted several times attempts to substitute "Ionian", which is wrong, since it has a leading tone. While I didn't write that passage, I did include the inline note. Probably the passage could be re-worded in some way like this: Ravel rarely used major or minor scales, instead preferring to use the Mixolydian and Aeolian modes, respectively; as a result there are few leading tones in Ravel's output, since his favored Mixolydian mode lacks one. Or something. I can look at this again tonight. Antandrus (talk) 15:30, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Long-running relationships

Re this: Ravel never married, but he did have several long-running relationships. Many of his friends have suggested that Ravel was known to frequent the bordellos of Paris, but the issue of his sexuality remains largely a mystery.

• What is the source for the "several long-running relationships". Is it known whether they were with women or men? What were their names? If this cannot be substantiated, I'd prefer the highlighted text above be removed from the article. JackofOz 04:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

No response, so I've removed this uncited claim. JackofOz 07:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Suffered from Aphasia?

Under the Aphasia page, Ravel is listed as a famous individual who suffered from aphasia, a neurological condition which makes it difficult to speak. Yet there is no mention of this on this page, and in the second paragraph under the "Musical Influence" heading, it quotes a witty response he gave to Gershwin--something that should have been difficult for him to do if he suffered from aphasia. Can someone reconcile these articles? Michaeljancsy 04:31, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

(i) Ravel's trip to the US was years before the onset of his aphasia; (ii) the Gershwin story is probably untrue anyway: Gershwin (or his equally insecure admirers) appear to have told a worryingly similar one about Schoenberg --

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4158/is_20010606/ai_n14386429

R. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pfistermeister (talk • contribs) 06:28, 2 March 2007 (UTC).

Injured in World War I?

In MASH, Major Winchester mentions Ravel and talks of him losing his hand (or its use) in World War I, forcing him to commission pieces of only the right hand.

Was that true? The article doesn't mention it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 205.237.164.110 (talk • contribs) .

No, absolutely not. (I hope they didn't say that!) That was his friend, pianist Paul Wittgenstein who lost his right arm. Ravel wrote the Piano Concerto for the Left Hand for him. Antandrus (talk) 23:46, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

MAJ Winchester's patient is another amputee, and both Wittgenstein and Ravel's concerto are mentioned. Drieux 00:38, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Infobox

Could someone who is familiar to the topic please add an infobox at the top of the page, possibly Template:Infobox musical artist. Thanks! Reywas92^Talk 21:42, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

No. There is no consensus on ths issue whatsoever, and the discussions at [[1]] have been lengthy and heated. This should not go in until there is solid agreement to do so. --Wspencer11 (talk to me...) 01:20, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Musical Influence

We have two musical influence sections in two parts of the article! And they have conflict, one claims Ravel was influenced by Debussy and the other argues against it. These should be merged. --Sketchee (talk) 19:17, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I performed the desired merge and added some material, lifted partially from the featured French article. I think the section suffers a little from repetition of points made in the preceding section (Musical style), and from lack of flow. I should note that the Jankélévitch translation of the quote is my own. There might be a more "official" (and natural-sounding) one elsewhere. Best, Eliezg (talk) 04:22, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Homosexual?

Whoever posted that Ravel was homosexual, could they please prove this? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gymnopedist (talk • contribs) .

Thanks for pointing this out: I had missed this edit. I went ahead and reverted to the previous version. Regarding his sexuality, there has been nothing besides speculation; Ravel was intensely private. According to the New Grove, the closest emotional relationship he ever experienced was with his mother. If someone has some citeable evidence of his sexuality, please present it. Thanks, Antandrus (talk) 23:06, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• There is no documented evidence of Ravel's sexuality either way. Manuel Rosenthal has suggested that Ravel frequented prostitutes, but there is no evidence for this. The subject remains a mystery and until it has been proven, the question should remain open, in the interests of scholarhship
  • That said, people are always putting these things forward. Ravel, Debussy, Tailleferre and others regularly come up on lists of GLBT people. While there's nothing wrong with people being of this orientation, it should be noted that some people (even the French) are simply not homosexual, regardless of how many homosexual friends they may have. If you can't cite a source, the best thing to do is to not mention the subject and leave the question open.

Musikfabrik 20:44, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

It has been noted that Ravel frequently wore makeup and dressed in silk robes. While this may not be indicative of homosexuality, he was certaintly effeminate. It is also quite unusual that of a man of his era did not marry. Was he a "Confirmed bachelor"?

See Long-running relationships below. JackofOz 02:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, as long as we're gossiping, the lengthy biographical introduction to a recent publication of Ravel's letters (I don't recall the title--I'll try to remember to look it up) maintains that Ravel frequented (female) prostitutes--very discreetly. He couldn't abide the idea of living with anyone else. If you knocked on his door while he was at work on a composition, he would ignore you completely. TheScotch (talk) 11:19, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Gershwin anecdote

Could somebody resolve this possibly apocryphal response to Gershwin? Or double-check the Schoenberg attribution (I mean - Gershwin learning from Schoenberg? really?) Or eliminate the whole thing entirely? All it does is make Wikipedia seem even less reliable than it probably is. Incidentally, the French article has Ravel saying the following to Gershwin: « Vous perdriez la grande spontanéité de votre mélodie pour écrire du mauvais Ravel. », i.e. "You would lose the great spontaneity of your melody to compose second-rate Ravel" and attributes the Jankelevitch biography. Best, Eliezg (talk) 19:01, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

All it does is make Wikipedia seem even less reliable than it probably is...

On the contrary: Wikipedia is the only place where the existence of two mutually undermining versions of the tale is noted: elsewhere, Gershwin fans and Schoenberg fans all repeat their own favourite version to their hearts' content... Pfistermeister (talk) 18:52, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, I decided I may as well check another recent book The Great Composers that I received for Christmas and interestingly enough, under its section on Gershwin it does actually attribute this particular quote to Schoenberg. But it also attributes the "How about you give me some lessons?" quote to Stravinsky, despite the Wikipedia page citing Stravinsky himself denying this. Gershwin did definitely request lessons (but was denied) from Ravel, Stravinsky and Schoenberg, so I can see that this issue is more complicated than I originally thought. I apologise for my hasty edit yesterday in favour of Ravel, as that was the only way I had ever heard and read the story previously. Since we appear to have sources that support both sides of these attributions, I am in favour of leaving the ambiguity, as long as it is written properly. I have reverted the previous Gershwin article for now, although someone may wish to word it more professionally than "...credited with essentially the same quote in the Wikipedia article for Maurice Ravel." as it currently stands. Symphonien (talk) 09:27, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Composer project review

I've reviewed this article as part of the Composers project review of its B-class articles. This is clearly a fine article; my detailed review is on the comments page. I have a few small things to note:

• the lead mentions things not otherwise in the body (estate royalties); should there be a section or paragraph discussing the legacy of his estate?
• the article needs more images
• GA/FA reviewers are going to complain about some paragraphs (and possibly some sentences) that are missing inline citations.

I think the article is A-level, and approaching FA quality. Magic♪piano 13:28, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

IP recent edits

So an IP made a bunch of edits, almost certainly in good faith; however, much of it added unnecessarily words that changed the tone, though there does seem like some of it may have been improvements. I reverted them, hopefully not being too hasty, but adding things like "One of his most famous inspirations" just seems a bit odd. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 14:09, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Notable aspects of compositions for the lead

Part of the lead currently reads

“ Ravel's piano compositions, such as Jeux d'eau, Miroirs, Le tombeau de Couperin and Gaspard de la nuit, demand considerable virtuosity from the performer, and his orchestral music, including Daphnis et Chloé and his arrangement of Modest Mussorgsky's Pictures at an Exhibition, uses a variety of sound and instrumentation very effectively. ”

I removed the phrase "very effectively" from the end because this seems to be subjective. Whether the phrase is interpreted generally ("to great effect") or specifically ("producing a particular, intended outcome"), it's just not clear what effect is being 'effectively' produced, although "irritating Ravel's critics" is perhaps plausible. Seriously, though, I think the point is to just mention the notable aspects of his compositions, right? That is, his compositions were unusual in that they were complex, requiring virtuosity and/or an abundance of sound/instrumentation/rhythm/whatever. Is that correct? If so, then the paragraph should just say that explicitly, and then use the current text as examples. —mjb (talk) 05:45, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

agnostic mother

I apologize if this has been discussed in the past, but the article states that Ravel's parents were both Catholics. This source identifies her as a "violent agnostic."

http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/i/ivry-ravel.html

Is it worth changing?--Atwardow (talk) 15:41, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Both his parents described as Catholics means that they were baptised in the Catholic religion, but not necessarily that they were profoundly religious or practicing Catholics, the majority of French Catholics are not. Consequently, while a baptised Catholic, Ravel's mother was an "agnostic" - *violent* ? wouldn't *outspoken* have been a better term to use for the author of the NYT article?

--Frania W. (talk) 13:06, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure it would have been a better word. But it seems to me that agnosticism and Catholicism are incompatible insofar as the former refuses to take a position on an issue regarded as absolutely essential by the latter, so I thought it might be worth including if the topic of Ravel's parents' religion is involved.--Atwardow (talk) 14:26, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

citation fiddling

Hi all- Unless there are any major objections, I'd like to tidy up the references in the article by using the harvnb template for notes, and collect all the references under its heading. Aside from the aggregation of references, there will be no appreciable difference except the lack of comma between author and year in the footnotes. I've started already at User:Blehfu/Maurice Ravel. Feedback appreciated. --Blehfu (talk) 18:00, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Ravel's piano lessons

So, started paino lessons at age 7 did he?: Anyone who has heard the piano rolls he recorded in 1920 will see this as a powerful reason for not inflicting such tortures on children! —the preceding unsigned comment is by PiCo (talk • contribs) 7 October 2005

I haven't heard them ... What do you mean? — Pladask 12:16, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

I am doing a report on Maurice Ravel and two others Igor Stravinsky and Bob Dylan and I was wondering if any of you have any interesting facts about any of them, please it would be greatly appreciated! signed,Allison age-13 —the preceding unsigned comment is by 66.52.23.29 (talk • contribs) 10 December 2005

It's very enterprising of you to ask us to do your homework for you, Allison. Anyone with interesting facts about these composers would, after checking them I hope, add them to the articles. Have you read the articles? --RobertG ♬ talk 09:53, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

He disliked the overtly religious themes of other composers, such as Richard Wagner, and instead preferred to look to classical mythology for inspiration.

I would've thought that Wagner inspired more of a mythological standpoint than religious, seeing as he wrote his operas about the Germanic myths. Maybe I'm wrong.

Yes I have read the articles, and thank so much for your help. i got a 95% on my report. allison

I understood that Ravel was actually not a very skilled pianist; is that what you mean about these rolls, that's he's not very good? Wspencer11 13:11, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Ravel the pianist

I came here to ask about Ravel the pianist, and noticed this thread. We say in the article that he received "a moving standing ovation which he remarked was unlike any of his underwhelming premieres in Paris." Was this ovation for his pianism per se, or as a tribute to the fact that these pieces were being played by their composer himself (I'm assuming he played his own pieces on tour)? Did he in fact play other composers' works publicly, and if so, whose? I find it hard to imagine that the composer of Ondine wasn't a very, very substantial pianist himself. Is there any decent information about the pianist Ravel, as distinct from the composer Ravel? -- JackofOz 05:24, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Here's something interesting - [2]. -- JackofOz 00:35, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

An interesting site indeed, but please do note that not everyone would agree with that author's assertions regarding the reliability of reproducing rolls or with his denegration of phonograph records of the era. The subject of rolls vs. records tends to prompt heated debate, and it appears this author's position is pretty much at one polar extreme of opinion. Drhoehl (talk) 20:25, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: "Maurice Ravel played the first two movements of his Sonatine, as recorded on a reproducing piano roll in Paris in 1913. No one knows for sure why he didn’t record the third movement. He did perform the entire work on his 1928 U.S. tour.":

The last sentence above would seem to contradict the article, at least partially. TheScotch (talk) 12:02, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Impressionist?

Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't Ravel always reject the label of "Impressionist"? I believe he was more closely associated with Expressionism. --bleh fu 16:13, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)

Most artists reject the labels assigned to them, for instance Philip Glass. I suggest you find a citation or quote which indicates that Ravel did not think of himself as Impressionist or rejected the label. However, that he is commonly called impressionist requires description. Hyacinth 17:05, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

A good suggestion -- I will look for a quote or something. From what I recall, though, Ravel distanced himself artistically from Debussy for this reason, to avoid that 500 lb. gorilla of a blanket. --bleh fu talk fu 18:30, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)

The term "Impressionism" really stems from the visual arts (where it's also not that useful), and I believe this is a large part of why Ravel & Debussy both disliked it. And the fact is that Ravel's music is not really all that similar to Debussy's. "Expressionism" in music is largely a German phenomenon and I have never heard it applied to Ravel or any other French composer of that period. Wspencer11 13:11, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, after that I'm surprised it's survived almost another five years. I think it is misleading and pointless and so I've removed it. Rothorpe (talk) 21:06, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Public Domain

"Ravel's works will enter public domain on January 1st, 2008."

In which country/countries? --Sketchee 17:44, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I was wondering this myself. I am pretty sure that none of his works will enter the public domain on that date. ~MDD4696 01:16, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I corrected the date (2015) according to [3]. ~MDD4696 01:20, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

According to copyright law in most countries, all of Ravel's works became public domain on Jan. 01 2008, 70 years after his death (see the article on Public Domain).218.167.16.157 (talk) 15:07, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

What I read in the book, Neurology Secrets was that after the car accident he began to deteriorate cognitively and his friends began to believe he was bleeding on the brain. They managed to find a surgeon who opened up his skull only to find his brain was tiny....he basically had dementia and then died from the shock of the procedure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.97.157.49 (talk) 21:56, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

WP:ENGVAR

Jerome Kohl is right, however I was reverting someone who changed a bunch of words with no edit summary. Being Ravel is French, there's no bias toward which type is used and thus I assumed what was there was 'right'. If someone wishes to go through and see which version it 'should' be based on WP:ENGVAR, go ahead, otherwise I'll revert again. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 21:59, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

If I had understood this, I might not have reverted your reversion of someone else's edit. Perhaps you should have mentioned this in your edit summary. However, since the subject of Ravel's nationality has come up, why are most of the dates given in M-D-Y order, which—English-language variant aside—is not appropriate for subjects geographically situated outside of the US?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:06, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Most likely because someone from the US did it and didn't think of it. As for my edit summery, well I tend to assume most people will look at all the edits they've missed, not just the most recent one...♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 00:18, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, I should probably be more attentive to such possibilities, but I am all too used to drive-by editors who think their local variety of English is the only correct one. As to the date format, it first appears at creation of the article, which initially was region-free in all other respects, and was made by an editor who self-identified as a German native, resident at Cambridge in the UK. Go figure.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 03:59, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

OK, I've done the donkey work. The language of this article remained region-neutral until 26 November 2004, when this edit established American English with the addition of the word "color".—Jerome Kohl (talk) 04:37, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Copyright

Hello, Ravel's works are out of copyright in France following the decision of the Cour de cassation (French Supreme Court) in 2007. See the article in French, and commons:Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests#Works_of_Maurice_Ravel. I removed the phrase saying the opposite. Yann (talk) 09:20, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't think this is correct. Everything I read says that the prorogations de guerre were only struck down for non-musical works but remain in effect for musical works, which means that musical works published through 1920 are copyrighted into 2022 and post-1920 musical works (published before 1947) are copyrighted into 2016. cmadler (talk) 12:59, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

The following statement is incorrect: "according to the governing copyright laws of most countries around the world, including all members of the World Trade Organization, Ravel's works fell into the public domain." The United States of America is a member of the World Trade Organization, though some of Ravel's works still receive copyright protection in the United States (e.g. Bolero, which was published in 1928, is protected under US copyright law for 95 years after the publication date, or until 2024). I have removed the mention of the World Trade Organization, and replaced "most" with "many" for these reasons.Erikwithuhk (talk) 14:15, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

This is incorrect, US copyright for published works (such as Bolero) is the "life of the author plus 70 years, and for works of corporate authorship to 120 years after creation or 95 years after publication, WHICHEVER ENDPOINT IS EARLIER" <emphasis mine>. In this case the earlier date is in fact 1937+70=2007, which coincides with the French court ruling in 2007. Please see here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Term_Extension_Act

All of Ravel's works are indeed now in public domain. 132.3.37.79 (talk) 11:58, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Maurice Ravel/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Comment(s)

Press [show] to view →

==Composers Project Assessment of Maurice Ravel: 2008-12-12== This is an assessment of article Maurice Ravel by a member of the Composers project, according to its assessment criteria. This review was done by Magicpiano. If an article is well-cited, the reviewer is assuming that the article reflects reasonably current scholarship, and deficiencies in the historical record that are documented in a particular area will be appropriately scored. If insufficient inline citations are present, the reviewer will assume that deficiencies in that area may be cured, and that area may be scored down. Adherence to overall Wikipedia standards (WP:MOS, WP:WIAGA, WP:WIAFA) are the reviewer's opinion, and are not a substitute for the Wikipedia's processes for awarding Good Article or Featured Article status. ===Origins/family background/studies=== Does the article reflect what is known about the composer's background and childhood? If s/he received musical training as a child, who from, is the experience and nature of the early teachers' influences described? Good ===Early career=== Does the article indicate when s/he started composing, discuss early style, success/failure? Are other pedagogic and personal influences from this time on his/her music discussed? Good ===Mature career=== Does the article discuss his/her adult life and composition history? Are other pedagogic and personal influences from this time on his/her music discussed? Good ===List(s) of works=== Are lists of the composer's works in WP, linked from this article? If there are special catalogs (e.g. Köchel for Mozart, Hoboken for Haydn), are they used? If the composer has written more than 20-30 works, any exhaustive listing should be placed in a separate article. Good ===Critical appreciation=== Does the article discuss his/her style, reception by critics and the public (both during his/her life, and over time)? Good ===Illustrations and sound clips=== Does the article contain images of its subject, birthplace, gravesite or other memorials, important residences, manuscript pages, museums, etc? Does it contain samples of the composer's work (as composer and/or performer, if appropriate)? (Note that since many 20th-century works are copyrighted, it may not be possible to acquire more than brief fair use samples of those works, but efforts should be made to do so.) If an article is of high enough quality, do its images and media comply with image use policy and non-free content policy? (Adherence to these is needed for Good Article or Featured Article consideration, and is apparently a common reason for nominations being quick-failed.) Article needs more images. ===References, sources and bibliography=== Does the article contain a suitable number of references? Does it contain sufficient inline citations? (For an article to pass Good Article nomination, every paragraph possibly excepting those in the lead, and every direct quotation, should have at least one footnote.) If appropriate, does it include Further Reading or Bibliography beyond the cited references? Article is well-referenced; copious inline citations. ===Structure and compliance with WP:MOS=== Does the article comply with Wikipedia style and layout guidelines, especially WP:MOS, WP:LEAD, WP:LAYOUT, and possibly WP:SIZE? (Article length is not generally significant, although Featured Articles Candidates may be questioned for excessive length.) Generally quite good; the lead says things not covered elsewhere. ===Things that may be necessary to pass a Good Article review=== Article needs (more) images and/or other media (MOS:IMAGE) ===Summary=== This is a wonderful article; it certainly contains all of the elements one would expect of a composer's biography. All aspects of his life, including his mysterious personal life, are covered as well as one can imagine. Notable compositions are given space, and critical and popular reaction of those works is covered. All of his works are listed in an appropriate way. The article appears to be well-formatted and structured (although I am not enough of a WP:MOS expert to pick out minor flaws). Its major defect is a lack of imagery. I have a minor comment about the lead: it contains information (about Ravel's estate royalties) not covered in the body of the article. If there is information to impart about Ravel's estate or the posthumous history of his music to give, a section could be devoted to it. The article is well-referenced, and has many inline citations, although GA or FA reviewers are likely to complain about sentences and paragraphs that are not cited. I believe this article is A-level material, and might benefit from a WP-level peer review to assess readiness for FA. Well done. Magic♪piano 12:27, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Last edited at 13:23, 12 December 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 15:21, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Ravel research on 'Frontispice' of 1918.

Anyone with information, please help. 'Frontispice' was first published in the Paris fashion magazine 'Feuillets d'art" of August 1919. Ravel's publishers, Durand et Cie, had sole publishing rights. I am informed that they took legal action and had this magazine removed from circulation because of this infringement. I have contacted the present owners of Durand et Fils, who say all old records are with the central Paris Library. And the Library informs me that their documents of this period have been destroyed. In any case, Frontispice seems to have been eventually officially published in 1975. The composition was little known before this. Even the British Museum only received their original Frontispice copy in 1959, and few musicologists of that era were aware of its existence. A number of todays researchers of 'Ravel' with whom I have been in contact have not been able to shed light on this subject.

Probably the best source on this curious little piece in English is Deborah Mawer's essay, “Musical Objects and Machines”, in The Cambridge Companion to Ravel, edited by Deborah Mawer (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000), 47–70. There is a short paragraph describing its metrical arrangement in the Wikipedia article on Quintuple meter. I hope this helps.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:55, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Infobox was reverted

Hello. I tried to add to add an infobox to add clarity to the layout of the page, but it was reverted. I hope someone reverts the reversion, just to make the page look less bad. I think it would be a waste of time for me to argue about this, so I will let others decide. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 00:38, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

You haven't read the item I tried to call your attention to (after you failed to read the very polite note immediately below which you placed your infobox, which also asked you to read it). Will you look at it now, please? Here it is again, for the third time: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Classical_music/Guidelines#Biographical_infoboxes.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 00:41, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Forgive me - I've just updated that link re "Biographical infoboxes", both in JK's post and in the article itself, as it appeared to have been moved since the notice was originally posted in the article. Alfietucker (talk) 07:57, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, but why should you ask forgiveness for rendering a service? I would like also to note that this topic was discussed, briefly, once before on this talk page.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:18, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Nature of Ravel's association with Ralph Vaughan Williams

It seems to be the received wisdom that V-W was one of Ravel's few students. I've always believed this was the case. However, I've just been browsing through Webster's New World Dictionary of Music (1998) - this is a cut-down version of Nicolas Slonimsky's Baker's Biographical Dictionary of Musicians (8th edition), with updates and amendements by Richard Kassel. I've owned a copy for years, but have never read it from cover to cover and am always finding new revelations.

Ravel's article says: "... accepted virtually no pupils, but gave friendly advice to Vaughan Williams, Gershwin and others".

V-W's article says: "Dissatisfied with his academic studies, he decided to seek advice from Ravel in Paris to acquire the technique of modern coloristic orchestration".

I'm usually prepared to believe Slonimsky where he diverges from other writers on music. He's saying V-W sought and received "advice" from Ravel, and specifically denies that Ravel had any [formal] pupils (although that's qualified with "virtually", which leaves the door open for a very small number, maybe only one).

On the other hand, Grove V says: "The list of Ravel's pupils, and of the composers who received advice from him, is given by Roland-Manuel in his invaluable book of 1928 as follows: Maurice Delage, Roland-Manuel, Manuel Rosenthal, Vaughan Williams, Maurice Fouret, Nikolay Obukov [sic], Louis Durey, Germaine Tailleferre, Lennox Berkeley". Unfortunately, it doesn't specify which were his [formal] pupils and which merely "received advice" from him.

Maurice Fouret seems to have been forgotten by history – all I can find out about him is that he wrote an opera "La Belle De Haguenau". We definitely need an article on Nikolai Obukhov (1892-1954).

Being a cut-down version (613 pages), Webster's doesn't have articles on every person that appears in Baker's, and Delage, Rosenthal and Vlado Perlemuter - the people we say were Ravel's students - are excluded, so I can't cross-check. I don't have access to Baker's 8th, unfortunately.

Maybe this is merely focussing on the semantic difference between "studied with" and "was a student of". I suppose one could do the former without necessarily formally doing the latter. If one sits down with another person and receives "advice" from them, does this constitute "studying with" them? I can't imagine much advice about "the technique of modern coloristic orchestration" could be conveyed during a half-hour chat over a cup of coffee - a more substantial and intensive association would have been required between the two men, and that would probably be regarded as V-W having "studied with" Ravel. But if we say that X "studied with" Y, this could suggest a period of months or years of formal study, when in fact it may have been as short as a handful of meetings, and informal meetings at that. This seems to suggest there's scope for misleading our readers if we're not careful with our wording.

I'd welcome any comments people might have on these issues. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:19, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I would not use Grove V for much of anything anymore. It's something like 50 years out of date, and the standard of scholarship in the Sadie versions is far higher. I also have a feeling (completely unsubstantiated) that many of the Ravel biographies are rather unreliable. But I am no Ravelm expert by any means. --Wspencer11 (talk to me...) 22:26, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Considering that lesser pianists have been known to claim to have "studied with" this or that "immortal" based on a master class or two, I would say that you've uncovered a significant instance of semantic waffling. (Note that I'm not suggesting *RVW* ever engaged in any dissimulation, only that "studied with" can cover an awfully broad range and that others might well have inflated matters.) "Advice" might not have come over tea and scones, or whatever, but it could well have constituted informal interactions along the lines of "I've been working on something and would like you to look at it and offer suggestions; mind if I drop by for a couple of hours?" In other words, I think you've hit on something suggesting that conventional wisdom may have been reading far too much into the actual record and that further investigation is definitely warranted. Thanks for raising this issue! Drhoehl (talk) 20:25, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm quite new to all this and have only just read your comments. RVW did study with Ravel. He intended to approach d'Indy first, but M. D. Calvocoressi introduced him to Ravel, whom he met on December 12th, 1907. As a result, RVW stayed for three months in Paris, having lessons 4-5 times a week - mainly orchestration. After RVW had returned to England, Ravel tried unsuccessfully to secure a Paris performance of In the Fen Country - the work of "a pupil of whom I am proud". This is all detailed, with letters and references, in "R.V.W." by Ursula Vaughan Williams [OUP 1964].Willowmusic (talk) 23:55, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Belatedly, thank you. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 00:42, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Charles-René

This appears to be the person born Charles-Olivier-René Bibard. No English WP article as yet. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 00:38, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Jack. I'll put him on my list, after polishing my schoolboy German (to coin a phrase). Tim riley talk 07:56, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Kaddish as an entirely original work

I edited the article to state that Ravel wrote a religious work: "Kaddish" and I have noticed that VincenzoCiochetti has added the text "which is merely an arrangement of pre-existent Hebrew liturgical melodies". As one with extensive knowledge of melodies to Kaddish and of synagogue musical liturgy in general (son of a cantor and member of a travelling synagogue-choir) I have never come across any melody for Kaddish that resembles Ravel's. In addition, in my searches across the internet I have not come across anything with regards to Ravel's piece being an arrangement to a pre-existent melody. A reference supporting the above statement, or a pointer to the "pre-existent Hebrew liturgical melodies" would be desirable. Nzneuman (talk) 08:58, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Maurice Ravel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150414100752/http://royalphilharmonicsociety.org.uk/index.php/awards/honorary/honorary_members/members2 to http://royalphilharmonicsociety.org.uk/index.php/awards/honorary/honorary_members/members2

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:38, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Updated images

I've made a number of updates to the images on this page, including removal of spots and scratches, and re-making some of them (including increasing the size) using the source files. I've tried to retain the original layouts as much as possible, with some minor alterations, but I've altered some of the colours to better match the originals and to tie the images together:

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

As you can see, the first image is no longer grayscale. Since the original is sepia I decided to give it a sepia tint. I did upload a grayscale version though, and if others prefer that then feel to revert to that version. (Incidentally, you may wish to listen to Frank Zappa's rendition of Ravel's Bolero – which Ravel himself disliked immensely! – while you review the images.) nagualdesign 09:01, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Nice work. But I'm amazed that Ravel ever got to hear Frank. Sorry if I'm scating on thin ice here. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:14, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. There's a few more I've yet to do but my wrist is giving me gyp and I'm tired. I'm as surprised as you that Ravel got to hear Zappa's version – he died 54 years before it was released! Perhaps I've misremembered and it was one of his sons. Thin ice! Very good. nagualdesign 10:39, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

There's a couple more. The 1916 photograph of him as a soldier looks much better now, if I do say so myself. I was going to do File:Fauré-by-Eugéne-Pirou.jpg as well but it's a bit beyond me, to be honest. At least, being a Featured Article, most of the images are now top quality, which might not be in the FA criteria but I think it's important. nagualdesign 17:39, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Final image completed, with FFT filtering courtesy of User:Quibik. nagualdesign 21:12, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Well done, Nagual. You should try your hand at Modest Mussorgsky! Martinevans123 (talk) 21:26, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. Since you asked me nicely I'd be happy to give it a whirl. nagualdesign 21:33, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Maurice Ravel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150105034959/http://www.maurice-ravel.net/religion.htm to http://www.maurice-ravel.net/religion.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:01, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

"He wrote no symphonies or religious works."

A recent edit removed references to Ravel's Kaddish, which would, in fact, appear to be a religious work. Should this not be re-added?

This Hyperion Records blurb could potentially be quoted from as a reference:

The success of the Chanson hébraïque led in 1914 to a commission from Alvina Alvi, a soprano with the St Petersburg Opera, to harmonize two further Hebrew melodies. Kaddisch (in Aramaic, ‘qaddish’) is a liturgical chant, the Magnificat of the synagogue service, but also sung by mourners after the death of a close relative. The mood is one of contained ecstasy, and tension is built out of the jarring between the melismata of the voice and the simple accompaniment with its unremitting G naturals. L’énigme éternelle is, by contrast, squarely metrical. The eternal puzzle of existence resolves into tra-la-las and the harshly repetitive accompaniment underlines the futility of pursuing the topic, in line with the composer’s agnostic stance that he found it hard enough to fathom his own motives without trying to understand those of a celestial Being.

— Hugh (talk) 22:16, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

I have seen nothing in all the sources I have consulted for this article that suggests that a Hebraic theme is used in a "religious" sense by Ravel in this piece. This, from Grove, is representative: "Other sets of songs further demonstrate Ravel's skill at imitating vernacular styles: Calvocoressi praised the way in which he captured the appropriate folk idiom in the Cinq mélodies populaires grecques, while the sensitivity of his Deux mélodies hébraïques led some to assume mistakenly that he was Jewish." Nichols (p. 198 of his 2011 book) does find an echo of the Libera me from Fauré's Requiem in the Musette in Le tombeau de Couperin (bars 33–40), but he does not class Ravel’s possible quotation of Fauré as "religious". There is also a "Religious dance" in Daphnis and Chloé, but I don’t think that counts as religious music in the usual sense of the phrase. I wonder if it would make things clearer if we revised the statement in the lead to follow Orenstein (p. 139) more closely – my italics:

As a creative artist, Ravel was keenly aware of his weaknesses and strengths. He wisely avoided the symphony and never turned to the theme and variations. He wrote neither for the organ nor for the church. A complete accounting of the elements in his art would run a gamut from Gregorian chant to Gershwin, passing through the Renaissance, Baroque, Classical, and Romantic eras. He managed to keep his personal touch in a style which varied from the striking simplicity of Ma Mere l'Oye to the transcendental virtuosity of Gaspard de la nuit, from the luxuriant, caressing sonority of Daphnis et Chloé to the austere violence of the Chansons madecasses, and from Renaissance pastiche to adaptations of jazz.

Tim riley talk 07:39, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

• Later: now done. Tim riley talk 23:14, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Medical papers

Right now a footnote reads: "In 2008 The New York Times published an article suggesting that the early effects of frontotemporal dementia in 1928 might account for the repetitive nature of Boléro.[165] This followed a 2002 article in The European Journal of Neurology, examining Ravel's clinical history and arguing that Boléro and the Piano Concerto for the Left Hand both suggest the impacts of neurological disease.[166] I'm a bit confused why the NYT article in particular is mentioned/cited in the text when it's basically just discussing Seeley et al. 2008's paper in Brain (doi:10.1093/brain/awm270) -- surely that paper should be cited as well or instead? The article might also be benefit from Baeck's 1996 paper in Clinical Neurology and Neurosurgery doi:10.1016/0303-8467(95)00086-0 or Sergent's 1993 paper in Trends in Neurosciences doi:10.1016/0166-2236(93)90142-9. Umimmak (talk) 06:15, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Those seem to me good suggestions. Tim riley talk 09:45, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Infobox

My proposed infobox as follows. Is this okay? I am unsure what works should be included, so I left that out for now.--ZKang123 (talk) 13:04, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Joseph Maurice Ravel
Ravel in 1925
Born	7 March 1875
Died	28 December 1937
Era	20th century (Impressionism)

Comment: If an info-box here were the smallest bit of use rather than mere duplication and a total waste of space it might be worth considering it. A pointless exercise and rather condescending to our readers. In short, I am against it. Tim riley talk 14:55, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose infobox. The Manual of Style says: "Whether to include an infobox ... is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article." While sports and politician bios can benefit from infoboxes, most articles in liberal arts fields, as here, do not. See arbitration report: "Infoboxes may be particularly unsuited to liberal arts fields when they repeat information already available in the lead section of the article, are misleading or oversimplify the topic for the reader". I disagree with including an infobox in this article because: (1) The box would emphasize unimportant factoids stripped of context and lacking nuance, in competition with the WP:LEAD section, which emphasizes and contextualizes the most important facts. (2) Since the most important points in the article are already discussed in the Lead, or adequately discussed in the body of the article, the box would be redundant. (3) It would take up valuable space at the top of the article and hamper 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 vandalism, fancruft and repeated arguments among editors about what to include. (5) The infobox template creates a block of code at the top of the edit screen that discourages new editors from editing the article. (6) It would discourage readers from reading the text of the article. (7) IBs distract 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. See also WP:DISINFOBOX. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:25, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose infobox as it contains nothing that isn't already in a well-written lead section. Dreamspy (talk) 15:30, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose infobox as it doesn't contain anything that isn't already stated in the lead and is therefore quite unnecessary. Jack1956 (talk) 15:56, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you to the contributors, above. To ZKang123, I pause to consider the Wikipedia guideline "Don't bite newcomers", and hope this chorus of disapproval won't put you off continuing to edit. But a word to the wise, when you see a little bronze star on the top right of a Wikipedia page it means it is a Featured Article, which has been through at least one and probably two thorough reviews by numerous Wikipedia editors and judged to be the best Wikipedia has to offer. It can still be improved, of course, but caution is advisable. Tim riley talk 20:18, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. Thank goodness I asked here before doing anything else. Yeah, I also agree that putting in the infobox as of now will be kind of useless in the article, but I also feel that the infobox itself is limited, because there should be a lot more that can be put into that infobox template (e.g. Alma mattar, teacher(s), nationality etc), which it can't really do as of now. I may request for changes to the infobox template and see.--ZKang123 (talk) 01:12, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

comma between 2 unrelated nouns, comma after a date, comma before a proper name

Tim riley: I question your removal of commas that violate the above 3 rules. Without a comma the sentence can be ambiguous; that's why grammar rules require a comma there. There are several instances of this you just changed. Need to change back. Chuckstreet (talk) 17:34, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

I generally follow Fowler when it comes to punctuation and grammar for BrE articles. I grew up with the second (Gowers) edition, and of course the original is an eternal delight, but the current Butterfield revision is recommended. Tim riley talk 17:39, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

My point is that the comma rules avoid ambiguity. Take for example: "Around 1900, Ravel and a number of ..." without the comma could be taken to refer to an address "1900 Ravel", that something happens "around". Another example that still has the correct comma in it: "A slow and painstaking worker, Ravel composed..." without the comma could look like it's referring to "the worker Ravel", as if "worker" was his appelation. Another example which illustrates the rule of needing a comma after a number if the number does not qualify the noun: "When he was seven, Ravel started piano lessons..." without a comma could mean that Ravel used to be or be known as "seven Ravel". Commas are necessary in these instances. Chuckstreet (talk) 17:52, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

That sort of thing, I know, is taught by schoolmasters and mistresses in America, but English writers eschew such needless commas. We use the comma when needed to avoid ambiguity (my pet example is "On reading Joyce, Beckett was excited", where without the comma people might briefly wonder who Joyce Beckett was), but the American rule that you need a comma in "On Monday 1 July Smith went shopping" seems silly to English writers (though if the month was May or June the Joyce Beckett consideration might come into play.) I don't think Genesis 1 would be improved by being printed "In the beginning comma God created the heaven and the earth". Of course, when writing (or attempting to do so) in AmE, as I have done in some composer articles, one tries to follow American usage, including the extra commas, anarthrous nominal premodifiers, the use of "due to" as a compound preposition and so on, and I would naturally defer to a native writer of AmE for such articles, but I think for a BrE article it is unwise to attempt to impose American notions of correctness. Your spelling of "appellation", above, demonstrates how different the American and English usages can be. Tim riley talk 18:15, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Why turn it into an "us versus them" (British vs American) problem? I thought we won that war ;-) Your date example is strange: saying "Monday 1 July" (dmy date) isn't American because we would say "Monday July 1" (mdy); the former doesn't need a comma but the latter does (because of the 2 spelled-out proper nouns together). To extend that example: "Monday 1 July 2019" (dmy) needs no conma, but "Monday July 1 2019" needs two commas, the 2nd one being between the 2 numerals. Anyway, your example is faulty and not apropos. Oh, "appelation" was a typo on my part, not an Americanism; I know it has 2 L's.

Anyhow, I don't think the commas I'm talking about are particularly one side of the water or the other. Do you have a rule book that states 1. a comma is unnecessary between two unrelated nouns, 2. a comma is not necessary after a number (like a date), and 3. a comma is not necessary before a proper name?

Another point: since this article (GA and FA even) has already been vetted, your changes should be reverted. Likewise, you were right to revert GrammarDamner's changes. And of course you can revert my addition of the word "and" too :-) There's also the question of consistency: several sentences (a couple examples of which I pointed out before) remain with a comma that follows one or more of those 3 rules. If we're going to eliminate commas for those three rules (if we decide not to follow them), then we would need to eliminate them throughout the entire article. Chuckstreet (talk) 19:12, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

As I say, I follow Fowler for BrE articles, and gratefully accept guidance on AmE ones. As to where commas are wanted, I have explained conventional BrE practice, above. We are without doubt inconsistent, and when to use a comma to avoid ambiguity is to some extent a matter of judgement. I don't imagine any of the reviewers at PR and FAC (not GA, unless my memory deceives me) would object to a bit of tidying up of minor points of punctuation − "... identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so", you know. Tim riley talk 20:41, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

I would tend to agree with Tim here. Yes, Fowler is an excellent guide for British English articles. Most of those commas seem unnecessary to me. The "Around 1900 Ravel" example seems particularly contrived and unconvincing. Just sayin'. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:47, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Lead query

This article is, of course, wonderfully written and informative, though I have some minor quibbles with the lead. I'm not convinced that Ravel's specialty with orchestration is properly conveyed in the lead; I mean in the article we have During his lifetime it was above all as a master of orchestration that Ravel was famous. which seems like a huge aspect that is underrepresented, and I'm not sure Many of his works exist in two versions: first, a piano score and later an orchestration. explains this sufficiently. I wonder if we could add a line like "A master of orchestration, many of his works exist in two..." or just something – there are probably more appropriate solutions available. I'm also not a huge fan of "orchestral arrangements" being used earlier — part of Ravel's fame with orchestrations seems to be that the pieces were less of "arrangements" and more of new pieces all together. E.g. if you look at Miroirs, "Une barque sur l'océan" in particular, it's orchestration completely scarps the left hand part and adapts it for a more idiomatic role; so more of an "orchestral transcription" or indeed just "orchestration". Aza24 (talk) 23:21, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Well, we mention his orchestration in the lead, and I should be sorry to introduce a dangling modifier on the lines suggested. On the whole I'd be inclined to leave the FA text as it is. Views of other interested editors would be v. helpful though. Tim riley talk 07:50, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, I'm not saying we need some dramatic "master of orchestration" (was only a suggestion) – only that the body text presents him as an especially skillful orchestrator, and the lead seems to not match this. I only bring this up because I've regularly been told (and seen myself) of his outstanding skills in that specific aspect, but just saying he "made some orchestral arrangements" is rather unconvincing. Aza24 (talk) 21:36, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Tim, thinking about this now, what about something like "Renowned for his abilities in orchestration, Ravel made some orchestral arrangements of other composers' piano music, of which his 1922 version of Mussorgsky's Pictures at an Exhibition is the best known." Though I've said it before, I will reiterate that my main rationale is the line later in the article During his lifetime it was above all as a master of orchestration that Ravel was famous, which the lead does not seem to reflect. If not, I shall push no further, I assure you. Aza24 (talk) 08:54, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

That looks fine to me. I'd leave this thread open for a few days, and then unless anyone else objects I'd add it if I were you. Tim riley talk 19:54, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Family images

Joseph Ravel (1875), Marie Ravel (1870) and Maurice Ravel aged four (1879)

@Tim riley: I disagree that the vertical layout is more suitable for the text. The caption in particular looks unnecessarily cramped. And by having the image horizontal with width=390px the height of the image matches nicely with the image of Charles Lenepveu and Théodore Dubois further down the page. nagualdesign 17:58, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

We are all entitled to our views, but for my part I prefer to stick with the version we agreed at FAC. And I always hesitate to impose fixed sizes on images, which is not always user-friendly, I am told, on different screens. Tim riley talk 18:04, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, there was no mention of this image at the FAC discussion in 2015, and most editors tend to focus entirely on prose as they don't have the means to edit images, nor the impetus to suggest any particular changes to them unless they are simply of obviously low quality. In 2018 I made changes to most of the images on this page, upgrading their quality to what I considered more befitting of a Featured Article. At the time I didn't see any reason to alter their layout. However, revisiting the article yesterday I thought there was room for improvement.

Having changed the family photos from a vertical to a horizontal format I did a few tests, editing the article to accommodate the new image, and (to my eye at least) matching it to the image of Charles Lenepveu and Théodore Dubois looked best. I tested it on a desktop browser on my 1600×900px monitor at 100% and at 125% and there were no issues. I was going to see how it looked on my mobile browser today, and reduce the width to 360px if necessary, but you had already reverted the edits. As a general rule it is indeed best not to impose fixed sizes on images, but there are many exceptions to that where taking control over the display size is a definite improvement.

Can we at least trial the changes I made for a few days and invite other editors to offer their opinions? I can also check how it responds on different screen sizes and fix any issues. nagualdesign 21:50, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

As an aside, I also changed the main image of Claude Debussy (another Featured Article), which wasn't particularly good quality beforehand. I think the reason that editors rarely request such improvements is simply because they don't envisage the possibility, but I hope you agree that these kinds of edits are definitely worthwhile. nagualdesign 22:03, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Why to stop reverting edits removing double hypotheticals.

There is no such thing as evidence, speculation, or hypothesis that something "may be" or "may have been" true. These three terms already incorporate the uncertainty of any proposition to which they apply, and it is meaningless to pile more uncertainty onto it. For example, "I speculate that your true name may be Josephine" says no more than "I speculate that your true name is Josephine" or "your true name may be Josephine". In fact, it says less, because my speculation can't possibly be wrong. Double speculation merely expresses uncertainty of a proposition that has already been posed as uncertain. Whether the uncertainty is about a past or a present event is immaterial.

If you even bothered to read the above, and need more convincing, here it is: To speculate means to express uncertainty. To speculate that something is uncertain is to express uncertainty that something is uncertain. Uncertainty is not additive: one "maybe" tells the whole story. Chenopodiaceous (talk) 23:30, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

What a lot of words to say "I don't like it"! Let us see if you can establish a consensus for your view. Tim riley talk 23:36, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

What a very few words to say "I don't like your explanation, but can't explain why not." Chenopodiaceous (talk) 23:52, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

I was refraining, out of charity, but if you insist – you give yourself away as a bogus expert, I'm afraid. If you are going to insist on your own made-up rules, you should take note of real experts. See Fowler on "Exclamation" in re your writing, above. And while we're on Fowler: "Tenacious clinging to the right of private judgement is an English trait that a mere grammarian may not presume to deprecate." My judgement so far as the present question is concerned is that one would need a tin ear for language not to realise that "speculation that Ravel, a lifelong bachelor, may have been homosexual" is not the same as "speculation that Ravel, a lifelong bachelor was homosexual". But, as I say, if others disagree with me and agree with you, so be it. Let us see. – Tim riley talk 07:01, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

I disagree with Chenopod. If people wrote: "Ravel may be homosexual", then I think it helps the reader to explain that this was what they speculated. If they wrote "Ravel is homosexual", then one could say that this was their speculation. So, from an encyclopedic point of view, we want to let our readers know what those writers were writing. I think it is better as User:Tim riley left it. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:53, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Which concertos

…only four of his works were conceived as concert works for symphony orchestra: Rapsodie espagnole, La valse and the two piano concertos. All the other orchestral works were written either for the stage, as in Daphnis et Chloé, or as a reworking of piano pieces…

There have been reversions of the descriptive 'piano', with the edit summary "We must not imply falsely that there are other concertos: that is why we chose the wording, approved at FAC". That concern strikes me as misplaced; is there actually previous discussion? Sparafucil (talk) 21:23, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

I think the numerous previous mentions of the piano concertos and conspicuous absence of mention of any non-existent concertos for other instruments is something of a hint. You seem to be on a mission of some sort, but I'm blest if I can see what it is. Tim riley talk 21:32, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Afterthought after another rereading: other editors who watch the article may have views, but for my own part, if it gives you pleasure, Sparafucil, to add "piano" I shall not demur. I don't think it is v. helpful to the reader but nor, methinks, though repetitive, is it unhelpful. Tim riley talk 23:15, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Even more pleasure to have worked things out with you: some readers may be jumping straight to the #Orchestral works section. I of course came to this from my watchlist changes, with even less context than that! Sparafucil (talk) 02:08, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Works dedicated to Ravel

The recent extensive addition seems to me to unbalance the article. I suggest we hive it off to a separate article, with a one-sentence mention in and a link from the main article. Thoughts invited on this suggestion. Tim riley talk 21:27, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

I think it would do better as sentence or two; "many composers dedicated compositions to Ravel, including Stravinsky, Satie etc. Upon his death others wrote works in his memory, including ..." We have something similar in the "Reception and influence" section of Chopin

For some reason, I feel that it's more meaningful to include (if at all) the title & composer for works in his memory rather dedications to him during his lifetime. I will also note that IMSLP is not a reliable source for an FA—it's editable by anyone with an account. Aza24 (talk) 06:33, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Infobox, revisted

I came to this page searching for some basic biographical information about Ravel - nationality, year of birth, year and cause of death, etc. - and was surprised to see that there is no infobox. I see that there has previously been shockingly heated debate around this question, so I wanted to ask the talk page before simply adding one. I see no reason not to add an infobox to this page, as it would simply make certain information easily accessible in the style and format that is typical of wikipedia biographies. But don't want my head to get bitten off for acting on that opinion... thoughts? Lamacha9617 (talk) 16:27, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Info-boxes are useful when they give the visitor to the page a quick overview: a cricketer's statistics, a politician's posts, an animal's taxonomy, a place's geographical details and so forth. But for composers they cannot give the reader any useful overview. Have a look at composer articles where there are info-boxes: e.g. Robert Schumann: the one there tells us the name of his nine children and nothing whatever about his music. What could be added to tell people about his music? That he wrote some. What would we include? What criteria would be applied to the choice? The lead mentions some (not all) of RS's best-known works. We'd look pretty silly repeating them immediately alongside in the info-box. What is the best-known thing about Schumann apart from his music? That he went mad. Do we put that in the info-box? The musical artist info-box is designed for people in popular music: "label", "genre", "associated acts", "website". The works of classical composers do not lend themselves to being summarised in a few words, a fact realised by whoever added the staggeringly unhelpful info-box to Beethoven's article, which tells the reader his place and date of birth and death and then, God save us!, asks the poor reader to click into a different article altogether, where he/she is confronted with a list of 148 compositions, with no indication of which are the most important. That is frankly an insult to our readers. The info-box guideline says that i-bs are "'at-a-glance", and used for quickly checking facts'". What facts about Ravel could we usefully put in an i-b? No, let us give a pithy overview of a composer's life and works in the lead section and not pretend we can adequately summarise them in an info-box. Tim riley talk 17:34, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

I see this discussion only now. Schumann's infobox shows his work, and no children (as of 2021). I support a similar concise infobox for Ravel as well. Beethoven's infobox was commuity consensus, in 2015. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:58, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

To be honest, I also see no harm in adding an infobox like Lamacha9617, especially for readers who are just quickly gleaning the article for certain stats such as date and location of birth and death, age at death, birthplace, alma mater, signature, which era of classical music, etc. as I don't think anyone is suggesting that the article introduction or article itself be replaced by an infobox.

In my opinion, having infoboxes helps save time for readers, especially younger ones or those of non-musical backgrounds who don't have the time to read through the entire article in one sitting and just wanted to know one or two small things about the biography. For example, someone who just wanted to know Ravel's age at death without having to scroll all the way to the end just to find out. I do strongly believe in accessibility for all readers and that Wikipedia articles should be written for general readers per WP:TECHNICAL; however, I won't challenge the status quo if it has already been decided that Ravel won't be getting an infobox. Respectfully, WuTang94 (talk) 04:01, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

I completely agree with @WuTang94, I also see no harm in adding an infobox. I don't see the purpose of not including basic information in an easily accessible manner, as nearly every other article includes it in some way. Personally, I also feel that it seems to place some articles above others. Why should a composer like Liszt have his birth and death, occupation, and signature placed for all to see, but not Ravel? It not only helps to have more uniformity among articles (in my opinion) but also seems to help break the "higher than thou" mindset often associated with classical music - which I highly detest. If great writers like Mary Shelley and Leo Tolstoy, artists like Da Vinci and Picasso, and nearly every great artist have one, why not honor composers as well? The average Wikipedia reader, likely won't think to themselves "Wow, Ravel does not have an infobox, I must therefore read the article in its entirety!" and more likely "huh, this Ravel guy doesn't have the little side thingy, weird. Maybe he's not that important?"

I also find it extremely useful simply for the brevity of it, where you don't have to skim essentially an entire synopsis of their life to find basic information. I like to arrange and transcribe pieces, and I try to add the dates of the composer's life, but often I can't find the dates due to being used to having an info box.

I do not see why we should distinguish composers by making it more difficult for the average reader. Pacamah (talk) 06:22, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

See my explanation above. No consensus for adding this pointless and unhelpful clutter. Who in Heaven's name needs to see Ravel's autograph? And how is is compliant with Wikipedia's policy that IBs sum up key points of the text? Tim riley talk 07:58, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

I mean, how does an infobox relate to most pages? Shakespeare's infobox doesn't give me any information besides that he writes in a specific period and place, or yet, why should his father have an IB if it doesn't tell me any specifics about his life? Most pages relating to notable people seem to have signatures as well, so I don't see why Ravel's (or more generally, any composer's) autograph should be singled out. Should we replace it with how they pen their treble clefs?

Also, I think this is my first actual talk chain! (Is that the right word? I guess it keeps up with the notion of classical musicians arguing, haha!) Thanks for replying to my message literally two years after your first one, hopefully my contributions can reach the level of yours one day (though I have a lot more to learn before then).

Thank you for all your work on the many pages you have helped with! Pacamah (talk) 08:32, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

The only pointless and unhelpful clutter about infoboxes is the constant incessant warring about it that seems to happen EVERY DAMN TIME someone who isn't one of the small group of weird anti-infobox editors finds a page without one and wants to add one like almost every other damn page. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 12:34, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

I rather object to the hurtful comment that I am a "weird" "anti-info-box" editor. I add info-boxes to all sorts of articles, most recently this one, but only when they fulfil Wikipedia's policy of summing up key points in the text. The proposed box for Ravel tells us that he was born, died and could sign his name. As for directing the reader to another page entirely, that is a blatant breach of Wikipedia's policy. Not helpful to our readers, which is why almost every major contributor to composer FAs has been against adding them. Tim riley talk 13:36, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

What's so wrong with having an infobox that shows a composer was "born, died, and could sign their name?" In addition, the infobox could show where the composer was born or died, what period of music they worked in or are generally lumped in, their families, if they had any, etc. Also, what Wikipedia policy would an infobox violate? I stand by my conviction that infoboxes would make the article more accessible to the average reader and data scientists/algorithms. WuTang94 (talk) 20:09, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't think it respectful to our readers to imagine they can't work out that a chap was born, died, and could write his name. What an IB for a composer would need to meet WP's criteria - and is unachievable - is a summary of why s/he is notable. A sportsman is notable for career stats, a politician for the posts achieved, an ecclesiastic for the benefices held, and we can sum all those up in an IB, but any attempt to say which works of Ravel (or any other composer) are notable is bound to be subjective and unencyclopaedic. Tim riley talk 20:47, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

I mean, we don't have to list his works in the infobox if that's your biggest objection, and I agree that his list of works is probably best where it is in the article. But overall, I think Ravel's article would benefit from having an infobox with quantifiable biographical information, and judging from this conversation thread, it looks like quite a lot of readers would benefit to that too and seem to fall more into the "hmm, why doesn't Ravel have an infobox? That's weird" group as Pacamah mentioned.

And yes, there are Wikipedia articles that don't necessarily need infoboxes like Architecture of Buffalo, New York as there really isn't that much to quantify in that article, but biographical articles like Ravel's should at least note some biographical details like place/date of birth and death. It's just weird that you seem to have such an adamant obsession with ensuring Ravel doesn't get an infobox with even those quantifiable, non-debatable biographical details, with all due respect.

WuTang94 (talk) 01:51, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

The salient advice is at MOS:INFOBOXUSE ("The use of infoboxes is neither required nor prohibited for any article.") Also, you forgot to link with all due respect. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:39, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

this is so stupid. the only type of person who thinks this way is a wikipedia mega-nerd with too much time to overthink this kind of thing . every average person visiting wikipedia (including myself) looks at the infobox FIRST. I came to this page looking to find when/where he was born, only to be confronted by the very ugly lack of an infobox. even Jesus has an infobox. what a joke. 2607:F598:B40A:E0:8C8D:8D65:C23B:DC6B (talk) 03:28, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

I'd like to thank you for a thoughtful, intelligent and civil contribution. Unfortunately I can't. Tim riley talk 12:56, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

The way I see it we have consensus for creating an info box for Ravel. A lot of other composers like Mozart, Bach, Beethoven etc have info boxes so there are no reason that Ravel shouldn't have one too. DrKilleMoff (talk) 17:46, 4 May 2024 (UTC) Would you care to point out the discussion in which this consensus you hypothesise recorded? Tim riley talk 19:16, 4 May 2024 (UTC) You are the only one who object to an info box. Consensus doesn't mean that everyone have to agree. It's enough with the majority. DrKilleMoff (talk) 21:36, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Oh, for pity's sake! Please read the very extensive discussion. Tim riley talk 21:43, 5 May 2024 (UTC)