Talk:Piano music of Gabriel Fauré

re request for comments

I am not really that well informed about Fauré's piano music, but I would recommend a recent book by Roy Howat, The Art of French Piano Music - Debussy, Ravel, Fauré, Chabrier published by Yale University Press in 2009. He covers many works in great detail, perhaps with an emphasis on advice for advanced students, but with much other very useful information. He mentions Fauré's surviving Érard piano, the influence of Hasselmanns and problems with different editions of the works. I will read through your article properly, too. Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 21:49, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much indeed for that suggestion; I'll order the Howat book tomorrow. I look forward to your other comments in due course – absolutely no hurry. – Tim riley (talk) 22:24, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Howat's book is formidably expert, and in truth one would have to know one's way round a piano keyboard a great deal better than I do to get the best out of him. Nevertheless, I have found some excellent and usable material in the book and I am most grateful to you for drawing it to my attention. Tim riley (talk) 16:33, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, he definitely writes with the notes under his fingers, rather than just as a listener. I am glad it was useful. Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 22:33, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

The article strikes me as being elegantly composed, in a way which honours Fauré and which I feel sure would have pleased him. It's a resource which I look forward to consulting in more detail as I listen back to some of Fauré's piano music. Thank you Tim!--MistyMorn (talk) 16:39, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

PS Can we hope for a brief article on Germaine Thyssens-Valentin? She's surely worth it (and I suspect you may already have one planned).--MistyMorn (talk) 16:56, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I have. I was unpleasantly surprised to see that there is no English WP article for her. I've got her on the list. Tim riley (talk) 18:14, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Behold the Lord High Executioner!--MistyMorn (talk) 19:33, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

And now executed. Tim riley (talk) 16:33, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Opus 106

First of all, wonderful-looking article which I have only just discovered. I was wondering if Barcarolle No. 12 should be labelled as "Opus 106bis" rather than Opus 106? As I understand it, this is one of those cases where two different works got the same number (whether Faure's attention was slipping or the publishers, or perhaps different publishers went for the same number). And my understanding is that it's the Barcarolle that 'lost out' and is now usually labelled as 106bis. I have the recordings by Kathryn Stott for Hyperion and it's presented as 106bis there. Not sure about other sources. Orfeocookie (talk) 07:54, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

You're right: Op 106 is the song cycle Le jardin clos, published in 1915, the same year as the barcarolle. Not sure why there was that muddle in 1915: both the cycle and the barcarolle were published by Durand. Thank you for spotting my omission. The article is fairly new: I wrote most of it the month before last. Any further fine-tuning will be most gratefully received. Tim riley (talk) 09:53, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

'Allo 'allo!

While some of the very recent edits in the last few hours obviously regard details of MOS, others seem to me (though I may be wrong) to be oceanic, and to my ears at least aren't always a clear improvement. A small query: In what variety of English is this page composed? MistyMorn (talk) 12:28, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

The original version by Tim riley uses British English ("colouristic"), so by WP:RETAIN it should stay that way. The stronger criterion, WP:TIES, doesn't apply. Favonian (talk) 12:37, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

That was rather my impression too. MistyMorn (talk) 12:48, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Good Heavens, yes! I wrote it in English, not American. Tim riley (talk) 13:34, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

No need to be condescending toward those of us in the States, ya know. But yeah, French topic, keep whatever it was written in first. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 14:49, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Gosh! No condescension, I assure you. I have to be kept on the straight and narrow by a kind American WP editor when inflicting my UK prose on Cole Porter, Jerome Kern et al! Tim riley (talk) 15:15, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Well Done !

Not sure that this is a first but well done the authors of this! Please add your contributions thanking the authors if you wish in this section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.29.127.209 (talk) 17:49, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Congratulations indeed! I find this FA, composed by Tim riley, exemplary in the clear and concise way it draws together encyclopaedic material about a well defined set of miniatures. It is both both easy and pleasurable to consult. A model for others, imo. MistyMorn (talk) 19:10, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

FA Status

I was disappointed to find out that this article has received featured status. The great portion of the article describes the most superficial features of each piece, features that can be easily felt by an unexperienced listener and tell nothing about the importance or uniqueness of the works discussed. The higher, analytical level is hardly dealt with. Looking at the list of references, out of 21 entries, 10 are merely liner notes of recordings etc.; 7 are mostly biographical references; and only 3 seem to deal mainly with analysis, although none of them is dedicated to Faure's piano music. However, a simple query of scholarly articles dealing with these works yields dozens of references, none of which are cited in this article. Although I will be probably accused of jealousy etc., I am forced to make a comparison with another article to which I was the main contributor, which has only achieved QA level. Read the two articles and judge for yourselves. How many references dealing with musical analysis, notated examples, and musicological terms are mentioned in each of the two articles?

The article cites Aaron Copland multiple times, yet the editors failed to read his very own essay on Faure (see ref. below).

To my judgement, the article needs a thorough revision in order to be worthy of FA status. The superficial descriptions of each short piece are totally futile to me, and I believe they should be shortened, maybe general comments about each specific genre (impormptu, barcarolle, etc.) can suffice. These descriptions feature all too frequent citations of extramusical connotations or scenic descriptions of all kinds of authors, instead of describing the music itself with purely musicological terms.

On the other hand, a thorough consideration of the unique style of these specific pieces (in what are they different from Chopin's piano music, for instance? What chords, scales and progressions characterize Faure's piano works?) and its influence on other composers, supported by analytical references and mentioning musical analytical terminology, is needed. The introduction is the only section dealing to some extent with musical terms, although also at a very superficial level. I think the article editors should aspire to read as much as possible, preferably all of the available scholarly articles and theses dealing with these pieces, if the article is to be worthy of FA status. I personally do not have time to make major contributions to this article in the coming months, unfortunately.

Here is an incomplete list of scholarly articles dealing with in-depth analysis of Faure's piano music, none of which are cited in the WP article:

• Smoke, Mirrors and Prisms: Tonal Contradiction in Fauré / ER Phillips / Music Analysis, 1993
• The solo piano music of Gabriel Faure / TJ Wegren / Ohio State University, 1973.
• Gabriel Fauré, a neglected master / A Copland / The Musical Quarterly, 1924
• The Nocturnes and Barcarolles for Solo Piano of Gabriel Faure: A Dissertation / RH Crouch, 1980
• Stylistic Evolution in the Solo Piano Music of Gabriel Fauré / TG Kitchen / Ohio State University, 1981
• The late solo piano works of Gabriel Faure / L Min / Juilliard School, 2000
• Gabriel Fauré: The Préludes, Op. 103, for Solo Piano: An Analysis in Relation in His Keyboard Compositional Style / JB Huff / Pennsylvania State University.

Gidip (talk) 13:34, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I have suggested to this editor that he/she may like to request a review of the article's FA status at Wikipedia:Featured article review. Tim riley (talk) 13:50, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I supported this article at its recent FAC because I thought (and still think) it an excellent overview of Fauré's piano music. It is not, and was never intended to be, an in-depth analysis of individual works or groups of works; that would have extended the article's length to impossible proportions. Such analyses would be more appropriately the subject of specific sub-articles; in this article, I believe that Tim's brief characterisations are sufficient. I think, also, that differences of view about the article should be aired on this page rather than at FAR, which is a rather formal mechanism – and it would be almost unprecedented for an article to be referred there within four months of its promotion. Brianboulton (talk) 15:04, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, this is an overview article, any specific details should be in individual works page (or groups of works, such as the collections of Nocturnes or whatever). That's pretty common standard on WP. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 16:28, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Gidip, if you think there is anything important that is missing from the article, please mention it here, and we can discuss it and possibly add it. The level of analysis in the article seems right for an encyclopedia article, and the text here is very readable and accessible to explain musical texts to non-musicians and general encyclopedia readers. However, we are certainly happy to discuss improving the article to see if more analysis should be added in any respects. Bear in mind that this an encyclopedia; not a musicology text. See WP:NOT PAPERS (see particularly #6 and #7). It is clear from your Schubert article that, although your research is impressive, your writing style is too scholarly and complex for the average encyclopedia reader to understand, and in the various discussions there, you are accused of WP:OR and Synthesis. You need to learn to present complex musical texts and scholarship in a way that is appealing and readable by most encyclopedia readers. To clarify complex concepts for the general reader. That is a far more important skill here than being able to write like a musicologist. However, as I say above, the information in the new sources that you list may indeed be helpful. If you give some examples of what you think is missing from this article, we can consider it, and possibly add it. I believe that you can learn a lot from working with us here that might help you to understand how to get your own articles promoted to FA. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:40, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Please read again WP:NOT PAPERS #7. "Introductory language in the lead and initial sections of the article should be written in plain terms and concepts that can be understood by any literate reader of Wikipedia without any knowledge in the given field before advancing to more detailed explanations of the topic. " The problem in the current article is that the "more detailed explanations of the topic" never appear. One of the FA criteria is being "well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature. " An article that mentions virtually zero musicological references, and half of its references are liner notes etc., obviously fails this criteria. I don't think I have to mention in any more detail what is missing from the article. I am not an expert on Faure's piano music, but whoever makes the major contributions to the article should be! It is beyond any doubt that Faure's piano music has some unique characteristics that can only be explained in purely musical terms, and none of it is given here. I have already given two examples. There is no need to dwell into separate analysis of each individual piece. There are clearly features which unite groups of pieces (e.g. all the preludes, all the barcarolles) and Faure's piano music as a whole, which should be mentioned. Read the Schubert article as a comparison - even if the "writing style is too scholarly and complex to understand", the information I have given should appear in the article, one way or another. I believe no more than 50% of the length of the article should be devoted to superficial and extramusical information such as biography, historical background, recordings, etc. The other half should progress towards more deep analysis, even if styled for lay readers. Compare the situation in the natural sciences - how deep do they dwell in their FAs? Gidip (talk) 17:26, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

It seems unkind to say so, but the length of Gidip's contributions does rather reveal the discursive nature of his/her inclination, as opposed to the pithy prose required for a general encyclopaedia article. I was reminded of this famous quotation from the 19th century: "My contention is that when a musician, who is master of many instruments, has a musical theme to express, he can express it as perfectly upon the simple tetrachord of Mercury (in which there are, as we all know, no diatonic intervals whatever) as upon the more elaborate dis-diapason (with the familiar four tetrachords and the redundant note) which, I need not remind you, embraces in its simple consonance all the single, double, and inverted chords." Useful for Wikipedia readers? I think not. Tim riley (talk) 17:47, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

One can understand from your claims that the general reader will have no interest in musical analysis, because music exists just to give us pleasure, unlike the natural sciences perhaps? Or how else should I interpret this? If you don't like the Schubert article that's fine, but the Faure article still calls for some professional, analytical perspective. Gidip (talk) 18:07, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

While not wishing to attack analytical theories, it seems to me that musical analysis is generally conducted post hoc. Rather a different situation to that of the natural sciences, imo. 2c, —MistyMorn (talk) 18:18, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't know where to begin in showing up the misguided statements made by Gidip.

• "An article that mentions virtually zero musicological references": an incomprehensible asseveration when the principal sources are Nectoux, Orledge, Jones, Duchen and Howat.
• "No mention of the Copland 1924 article" – apart from the nine references mentioned, presumably
• "What chords, scales and progressions characterize Faure's piano works and its [sic] influence on other composers, supported by analytical references and mentioning musical analytical terminology, is needed" – how will that help the typical WP reader?

I shan't add more, as it would be unkind. I invite Gidip to reflect on the word "consensus", which we have here, with one conspicuous exception. Tim riley (talk) 18:56, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Tim, the initial points of your justifications were considerable, but then you (somewhat disappointingly) derailed your sincerely. Firstly (in regard to the second response) Wikipedia is a user-generated source of cited information; it obviously won’t cater to all readers (and not all information on this article would be helpful to all WP readers either, as the knowledge-based desires of readers are individualistic.) As for the last section, it was rather pointless. Stick to justifications for your sentiments please, not asking users to “reflect” on words in seemingly blatant relation to their actions. *Raises eyes*LLLookAtYouHacker (talk) 18:56, 08 October 2012 (UTC)

Gidip, it appears from your post that you have a lot of interesting and important information to add to this article. Well, get to it! We aren't running a contest here, we are trying to work together to make the best encyclopedia we can. So if you have something important to add, do it. --Ravpapa (talk) 19:50, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

If I had the time to study this material in detail I would definitely had done so. I bought Howat's book a year ago and still haven't had the time to read most of it. Gidip (talk) 11:41, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

"Fanciful titles"

This important comment backed up by the composer's son's words should definitely be moved from the Barcarolles section to either the lead or the introduction, as it is relevant to most if not all the pieces. Gidip (talk) 11:41, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

That seems a wholly reasonable proposition, and I don't think anyone will demur. Do you want me to move it or will you do the deed? Tim riley (talk) 14:24, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

I think I'd rather leave it to you, if you don't mind. Cheers, Gidip (talk) 21:30, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Will do. Thanks for the suggestion. Tim riley (talk) 23:12, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

And now done. Tim riley (talk) 15:28, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Neglected composer

I think Faure's works were and still are neglected. Just count how many pianists perform them. The most famous pianists very rarely do (Horowitz 1 piece, Rubinstein 1 piece, more examples?). These works are almost unknown when compared to Debussy or Ravel, for instance. The famous G. Henle Verlag edition published only one work up to date. I think this is one of the most important points about this repertoire, and it has to be mentioned in the article, close to the beginning. Copland's essay is a good starting point. However we also need a more up-to-date review describing the current status of the works. And of course any explanations for the pieces' unpopularity will be great (maybe Copland gives any?). (Personally I think these works are among the best in the piano repertoire, I am playing and studying them continuously)

I hope I will find time to contribute to some scholarly analytical information for this article. Maybe a few more months ahead, after I finish my PhD. Gidip (talk) 03:57, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I hope you won't seek to overburden the article with technical detail. It is an overview for the lay person, and has an FAC consensus behind it to that effect. For more technical details you should edit or create articles on the individual works. I agree about the virtuosi, though in fairness to Rubinstein I heard him play two Fauré pieces at different recitals. I never heard Horowitz. I hadn't thought to add a performance history to the article, but there's no reason why you shouldn't, if you can track down details. Tim riley (talk) 18:20, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it is about time we settle this issue. Although I may have wanted it to be so, I have no intention of converting this article into the Schubert's Last Sonatas kind. The scope of research on Faure's piano music is anyway more limited than in the Schubert case. However, these pieces do have a lot in common regarding their style and this article is definitely the place to refer to it. Faure's indifference to the titles of his works only strengthens this argument - there is no point in creating a separate article for the 13 Nocturnes or the 5 Impromptus etc. because there are no clear differences in genre. Neither does any single piece justify a complete article on its own.

So, we may ask for the opinion of the community as to how this article should ideally look like. My suggestion is to add musicological information at a length no more than about 25% of the total final article. Complicated terms can be explained with links and/or short explanations etc., anyway there won't be any lengthy single analysis. And I also think more information can be added which is fully comprehensible to the lay person, such as performance history etc. (see above). As you can see I am trying to create a more collaborative atmosphere here, unlike our previous exchanges... Obviously we have created two articles, both of which are appreciated by most of the community, although representing two ends of a lay-professional spectrum. So I believe the ideal article (not my personal preference though) has to lie somewhere in between. I hope this makes any sense, I won't add much more on this issue. Gidip (talk) 22:22, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

An alternative strategy is to create two separate articles, one for the layman and one for the professional musician (see General relativity). I really don't think this is necessary or beneficial in our case or in almost any article about music. Gidip (talk) 22:35, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure you're right that we don't want two articles, one posh and one plebeian (though I can well see that General relativity might need both). Not a bad idea to raise the general point about balance between technical and non-technical with other editors. There is a classical music project forum here, which might be a suitable place. Pray ponder. On a more specific matter, if you haven't got a copy of Copland's article I'd be glad to send you one. Tim riley (talk) 15:57, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I have it, thanks. Gidip (talk) 18:30, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Pavane

I'm a little sceptical about the inclusion of the Pavane in this article. I see that there's a citation of a source saying the Pavane was composed for piano, but how reliable is this?

Partly I say this because the Pavane doesn't appear in recorded collections of the complete piano music, but also because Grove explicitly disagrees (or did a couple of years ago). Grove says it was a work for orchestra with optional chorus (wordless?) composed in 1887, with (in order) a piano arrangement in 1889, a choral + piano version in 1891, and the choral + orchestra version in 1901.

Nectoux also states that the Pavane was written in 1887 and lists it under choral music.

Have we got any other sources to check?Orfeocookie (talk) 12:18, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I must say I was surprised to read this in Howat, but he is a most distinguished source, and more recent than Nectoux. (Grove, by the bye, is Nectoux too.) Perhaps I have misread what Howat wrote; I'll check next time I'm at the British Library. Whatever the chronology, there patently is a piano version, as Sir Adrian heard Fauré play it. Tim riley (talk) 15:40, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Certainly no disagreement that there is a piano version, and in fact we have other transcriptions mentioned in here, so it was inaccurate of me to write as if the Pavane should be excluded from the article altogether. The scepticism was towards whether the piano is the original version. I haven't seen the Howat text, but if you get to it before I do it may be worth considering whether what he meant was that the choral version with piano precedes the choral version with orchestra. Because that would resolve the inconsistency. Orfeocookie (talk) 22:43, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Good. Let's compare notes in ten days or so. I'll toddle down to the British Library, on this and other Wikipedia missions, next week, and report back here on this point. – Tim riley (talk) 23:05, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I've just discovered that Mr Howat's website says that he has created a piano transcription of the Pavane, published by Peters. It's on this page here. I wouldn't say this is conclusive on its own, but it certainly doesn't seem very consistent with it being a piano piece to begin with. I tried to track down more information on the Peters publication, and eventually found this. It clearly describes Faure's piano version as a transcription. Note that it is said to be from material written by Howat. Orfeocookie (talk) 02:22, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm still unsure about this. I checked the Howat book at the BL this morning. The text reads, "…Pavane op. 50, first published for solo piano in the 1880s, then with an added SATB text by Robert de Montesquiou…" It certainly existed in piano form in 1887: in September of that year Fauré wrote to Countess Élizabeth Greffuhle, "I should so much have liked to play you a Pavane that I have composed especially for your salon (Nectoux (ed) – Gabriel Fauré: His Life Through Letters, p. 130). But in another letter that month he told Marguerite Baugnies that he had composed "a Pavane … for the Danbé Concerts orchestra" (ib. p. 129; my italics). Nectoux in the 1991 book (p. 395) mentions the work in piano and orchestral forms, with and without chorus, but doesn't say which came first. I don't, by the bye, put much store by the accuracy of the Peters website, which thinks Jules Danbé was, ahem!, Jules Danube.

I think it might be safest to say that Fauré produced the piece in piano and orchestral versions in 1887, without attempting to say which came first. From Fauré's letters it looks rather as though he worked on both versions simultaneously, but it would be speculative to say so without clear corroboration from a reliable source. – Tim riley (talk) 14:02, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm. First published for piano would in fact be entirely consistent with a couple of things I've seen. But first published is not first composed. I think wikipedia's own Pavane-specific article is just one of the places suggesting that the first orchestral version in 1887 didn't get performed immediately, and I can now see that Grove indicates it wasn't published until 1901 - well after the appearance of the piano version. I think also, looking more carefully, that 1889 is the date of the piano version's publication, not necessarily its composition.

I can understand your scepticism about the Peters website, but please note I did find versions of the same information elsewhere, such as Amazon and Sheetmusicplus. More importantly, though, I think I can get hold of a hard copy of Howat's transcription at the library here. So I will check what it says in the preface. If we have Howat on record saying that Faure's own piano version is a transcription, then I think it's clear that the piano version was not first-composed, even though I think it's probably correct that it was first-published.

PS I don't immediately understand why you think performance at a Salon means piano. Perhaps I am missing something. Orfeocookie (talk) 23:42, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Good. I'll wait with interest. (As to the salon, if Fauré was going to play the piece, it could only have been on the piano or, God forbid, the organ. The mind boggles.) Tim riley (talk) 09:21, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Afterthought: Roy Howat has occasionally contributed to Wikipedia, and I've put a note on his user talk page inviting his comments. I don't think he looks in all that often, but no harm in asking. Tim riley (talk) 09:25, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I am now convinced that Mr Howat does not think the piano version is the original. The preface of the Howat-Hiscocks transcription is dated 1994. The very first sentence of their preface is "Fauré composed the Pavane in the summer of 1887, originally as a purely orchestral piece for the concert series of the Parisian conduct Jules Danbé."

It then goes on to say that Danbé did not perform it, that Fauré dedicated it to Greffulhe in hope it would be performed at her salon, and then immediately links this with Faure's desire to have it performed with an invisible choir and orchestra. I note that the letter mentioning the salon is the exact same letter that mentions the invisible choir and orchestra and says that he has asked Montesquiou to provide words. The next couple of letters show that Montesquiou did provide the words very soon after. I can accept that Faure would have, if he was playing the piece for Greffulhe in September 1887, played it on the piano, but I do not agree this means he intended for it to be performed at her salon on the piano. He is already talking about the choral part added to the orchestral score, in the same letter.

The Howat-Hiscocks preface goes on to say that Fauré's own transcription is of the Pavane in its earliest form, before he made minor changes to the full score for its publication in 1901. They explain that their own transcription is instead based on the 1901 published version, but taking into account Fauré's piano version. A note to the preface says the piano version was published in 1889 or 1890.

Howat's later book, as you've noted, says that it was first published as the piano version "in the late 1880s" and then as the piano + chorus version. Nectoux's volume of letters includes a note saying that the piano + chorus version was in a compendium volume from a newspaper in 1888. However, Grove Online seems to agree with Howat's statement, listing the piano version as published in 1889 and the piano + chorus not until 1891.

Howat didn't change his views, because the later book in fact does not consider the piano version to be the original composition. In discussing Fauré's piano rolls (p.322) he says that Fauré recorded several solo piano pieces and the piano reductions of 2 pieces, 1 of which is the Pavane. There is a clear separation between the 'piano pieces' on the one hand and the 'piano reductions' on the other.

Everyone is in agreement that the piano version was published well before the orchestral version, so I would be fine with a text saying that. I think I would also be fine, one apparent contradiction from Nectoux's letters notwithstanding, with saying that the piano version was the first to be published (ie before the piano + chorus version), as Grove (which is also Nectoux) agrees with Howat on that. But I just don't see any evidence of an original piano composition or an original intention for it to be a piano piece.Orfeocookie (talk) 04:35, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Bravo! Your researches seem to me to provide a firm and reliable conclusion, and you deserve the warmest thanks for the time and patience you have put into following up your original hunch. I suggest we change the first line of the section to read something like, "The Pavane was conceived and originally written as an orchestral piece. Fauré published the version for piano in 1889." I don't think we want to go into detail in the overview "Piano Music of Gabriel Fauré" article about the chronology of publication of the various versions, but we should certainly do so, I think, in the article on the Pavane. If you agree, perhaps you'd like to revise the latter accordingly? Or I can do it if you prefer. Tim riley (talk) 12:13, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, if you hadn't put so much excellent work into building this article in the first place, I wouldn't have something to investigate. I agree there shouldn't be too much detail here (well, except behind the scenes!). I'm happy for you to use Howat's wording or something like the above to the same effect, whatever you think is best. And yes, I will have a go at the Pavane article. I think a lot of it's already there anyway, it might require more deletion than insertion.Orfeocookie (talk) 09:09, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Barcarolle issues

I've just fixed the key of Barcarolle No.9, which was wrong (it is most definitely in A minor, not D flat major). I don't currently have access to the relevant sources to check whether the quotes are all correctly aligned around barcarolles 8 to 10. Numbers 9 and 10 are in the same key and quite similar in some ways.

Also, the description of Barcarolle No.7 as 'recalling' Crepuscule may well be a quote, but I've just realised it's a fairly unfortunate one, because several sources seem to agree that the barcarolle was written in 1905 and Crepuscule wasn't written until 1906. However, Crepuscule uses some of the same music as Melisande's Song, written in 1898. Nevertheless, if Koechlin is trying to suggest that the barcarolle is copying Crepuscule in some way than Koechlin is simply contradicted by numerous other sources.Orfeocookie (talk) 11:43, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I've now checked, all the references are fine, it was only the key in the heading to Barcarolle No.9 that was in error. Koechlin also does, at least in English translation, say that Barcarolle No.7 'recalls' Crepuscule. I think Koechlin is being nonsensical, but that is the text!Orfeocookie (talk) 04:06, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Point taken, but once there exists a corpus of work it isn't all that outlandish, surely, to say, years after both pieces have been published, that piece A is reminiscent of piece B even if the latter was written after the former. A phrase like "pre-echo" or some such might be safer, but I think you should let old Koechlin off with a caution. – Tim riley (talk) 14:43, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Question

Why quoted appears in italics suchs as Quoted in Nectoux (1991), p. 48. What dos it mean? As I am currently translating this interesting topic into Spanish, I would like to know. Cheers! Doblecaña (talk) 17:42, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

I think it is simply a traditional English typographical convention, used when a quotation of XYZ's words is taken from ABC's book: thus, XYZ quoted in ABC, p. xx. It is often seen in indexes and footnotes, but the meaning would be just as clear without the italics, and I think you can safely ignore the italicisation when looking at the text from a translator's viewpoint. (This is just my wholly unauthoritative opinion.) I'm delighted to read that you're translating the article into Spanish, and I hope you enjoy completing the task. Tim riley talk 18:13, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your fast reply and for encouraging me to continue my task. I think I will ignore the italics. It is a delight to translate, its written in a clear and not at all affected language, and that's hard considering the topic. Fauré is currently a FAC in the Spanish wikipedia. Doblecaña (talk) 10:29, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

First intégrale?

• [Moved from user talk page]

Fauré first complete piano solo music was done by French pianist Evelyne Crochet, and released in 1964, according to its official website. The New York Times calls the recording «a labor of love». I don't think I can prove it being the first completed recording, but can she be mentioned in Piano music of Gabriel Fauré? Vox recording codes are VBX 423 and 424; stereo SVBX 5423 and 5424 Triplecaña (talk) 11:30, 26 February 2016 (UTC) (formerly Doblecaña)

Thank you for this. It's most interesting, and I'll certainly look into it. By chance I happen to be at the British Library as I type this, and I'll have a good look on the relevant shelves here before I leave. More anon. Tim riley talk 14:16, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

I think before Crochet's set there was the one by Germaine Thyssens-Valentin for Ducretet-Thomson, reissued by Testament. (But was it complete, or less complete than the Crochet?) ReverendWayne (talk) 07:02, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

EC includes Theme and Variations (Op. 73), 13 Barcarolles (Op. 26 to Op. 116), 4 Valse­Caprices (Op. 30, 38, 59 and 62) and Piéces bréves (Op. 84). Also nine Preludes (Op. 103), five Im­promptus (Op. 25 to Op. 102), 13 Nocturnes (Op. 33 to Op. 119), a Mazurka (Op. 32) and three Songs Without Words (Op. 17). GTV includes Valses Caprices / Impromptus / Pieces Breves (disc 1) Barcarolles / Theme & Variations (disc 2) and 13 Nocturnes (disc 3). This means EC includes additionally the nine preludes, mazurka and three songs without words. I checked amazon for GTV. She was the first, though, to record all 13 Barcarolles (according to its program notes) Triplecaña (talk) 13:58, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm going to move these exchanges to the article talk page. I think it would be sensible to have them there where they can remain easily accessible to other interested editors. I haven't finished digging about the various sets and will report back, though not for a few days as I'm about to be away. Tim riley talk 14:09, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Any news on this little research? Triplecaña (talk) 11:40, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Broken link

The link of December 1945 issue is broken. Found this though it is unreadable. If it requires subscription please note so. Cheers! Triplecaña (talk) 15:40, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

One citation

The quote "In piano music there's no room for padding – one has to pay cash and make it constantly interesting. It's perhaps the most difficult medium of all" can also be found on page 380 of Nectoux's Gabriel Fauré A Musical Life, which has the advantage of a preview on Google Books. Can somebody explain me that idiom? Is it really necessary to understand the idea? Triplecaña (talk) 12:21, 23 March 2016 (UTC)