This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I've gone as far as I can go with it, I think, without a steer from Wiki-colleagues. User:Ssilvers has nobly given it a copy-edit, and input from anyone else will be gratefully received. Thoughts on whether GA should be its next destination would be helpful, too.
Thanks, Tim riley (talk) 13:42, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Brianboulton comments: Here, for starters, are some comments on the first few sections.
- Lead
- Slight lack of prose flow in first paragraph. Consider: "After his appointment as director of music for the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) in 1930, he established and was the founder-conductor of the BBC Symphony Orchestra. This orchestra set standards of playing in London which were rivalled only by the London Philharmonic Orchestra, founded two years later."
- "Manoeuvred out of the BBC by a rival in 1950..." Perhaps omit "by a rival" to stop people immediately thinking "who?" (and being disappointed to find out that it is the completely forgotten Stuart Wilson). Or you could make it neutral by saying: "Forced to retire from the BBC at the age of 60 in 1950, ..."
- Point taken. Have reluctantly gone for the vanilla version.
- "principal conductorship" and "chief conductor". Should the terminology be consistent?
- The letters LPO should appear in brackets after the first mention of the London Philharmonic Orchestra.
- "He" should not begin a paragraph. Hence, third paragraph, "Boult was known..."
- Comma alert: there is a tendency to over-use commas. I've zapped a couple from the lead, but a general checkover might be useful.
- A besetting sin of mine. I'll give the whole thing a going-over for rogue commas.
- Early life
- I find this slightly awkward phrasing: "He was educated at Westminster School, in his free time from which he attended concerts..." This could be: "He was educated at Westminster School in London, where in his free time he attended concerts..."
- "His biographer, Michael Kennedy, wrote..." I think the literary convention is "writes"
- Boult's three precepts: the first two are stated clearly, but the third is not. Perhaps it's the phrasing; should it be "and finally, the effect of music made utterly without effort" ?
- An earlier editor’s prose, but I have changed as suggested. I have the complete text of the paper, and this rephrasing represents it justly.
- The chronology of Boult's education is a bit confused. When did he attend the Leipzig Conservatory? Mentioning his doctorate at this point is surely premature - it reads as though he went to Leipzig after his doctorate.
- Have moved the mention of the DMus to the chronologically appropriate spote. The BMus doesn't sit comfortably anywhere and I have just left it out, de minimis. Leipzig dates added.
- Suggestion: perhaps The Ring would be better expressed as "the Ring cycle."
- First conducting work
- List of composers in second line: Wagner should have been linked at first mention. Perhaps Schumann, and certainly Wolf, should have their first names (Bach, Mozart, Wagner well-enough known, Butterworth's already given)
- All done except for Schumann, who seems to me definitely in the surname-only league.
- "some of which were subsidised by his father and others..." I would remove "and others" - it mucks up the syntax.
- "Among them was the revised version..." Should this be "a revised version"?
- It should. The first of three, I think. Done.
- Do we have the date of the Planets premiere? Was it a complete performance?
- Date added. I'm sure it was complete. There were two incomplete public perfs in 1919 and 1920, but I have not seen any suggestion that the Sept 1918 première under Boult was incomplete. We know there was a choir, so Neptune was included (it was omitted in the 1919 and 1920 perfs).
I'll be back to give more. Brianboulton (talk) 22:21, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This is wonderfully helpful. I look forward to your further comments in due course. – Tim riley (talk) 10:21, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Pleasd to be of help. If it's OK by you, I'll wait until you have dealt with Jonyungk's comments below, before continuing, to avoid duplication of comments. Brianboulton (talk) 16:58, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Here's more
- Birmingham
- We have two "appointments" in the second line. Hard to reword convincingly; How about: "but his participation in the next season was prevented by his appointment in 1924 as conductor of the Birmingham Festival Choral Society. This led to his becoming musical director of the City of Birmingham Orchestra..."?
- "which position he held" would read smoother as "a position he held..."
- "During his Birmingham years, this post kept him in the eye of the London musical world, and in 1930 he returned to London to take up the post of director of music of the BBC in succession to Percy Pitt." First, he only had the post towards the end of his Birmingham years; secondly it might be clearer to say "this new post"; thirdly, as I understand it he had been teaching at the RCM all the time he was in Birmingham, so in what sense was he "returning" to London? Also "to take up the post" gives the impression the job was lying around waiting for him. Someone must have offered it to him; it would be good to be precise about this.
- On reflection I have blitzed the sentence. To judge by Kennedy’s book it was a case of "out of sight out of mind" in the London musical scene of the day, but the point is peripheral.
- BBC Symphony Orchestra
- Small point, but I think Reith was "Sir John" by then.
- I suggest that, for clarity, you add the words "under the BBC's aegis" (or similar) to the end of the first sentence. As I understand it, the BBC Symphony Orchestra didn't exist before Boult's arrival, so perhaps "...bring the complement of the newly-formed BBC Symphony Orchestra to 114 players..." would clarify further.
- "1930 Proms" - first mention, I would recommend spelling it out.
- Do the dots in "B.B.C." in the quote warrant a [sic]? (I love these)
- "Reith, being told by his advisers..." → "Reith, having been told by his advisers..."
- I've expanded the para, as the content is, I think, relevant and interesting.
- "During the 1930s, the BBC orchestra..." Should the orchestra be given its title? Or perhaps, simply "the orchestra"?
- The former, I think. It hasn't been named for a couple of paras.
- Most of the composers named in the third paragraph have already been linked. Do you need to link them again?
- Earlier links are in the lead. The practice in other articles seems to be to repeat at first mention in the body of the article, but I'm wholly biddable on this.
- Guest conductors collage: the caption should identify Strauss as Richard Strauss
- I don't think that everyday expressions like "especially well received" need be in quotes. There are a few other similar instances which might be de-quoted (including the "outstanding" at this paragraph's end.
- "in order" is frowned on in featured prose; quick delete
- "At the end of the war, Kennedy records, Boult "found a changed attitude to the orchestra in the upper echelons of the BBC and had to fight hard to restore it to its pre-war glory." A brief mention of the reason for this changed attitude is necessary.
- Done. Reith – whose idea the BBCSO had been in the first place – had gone by then.
- London Philharmonic
- Tryptich (Elgar, Mahler, Beethoven): could an image expert look at the licensing for this? I guess it's probably OK, but these composites can be tricky
- Will do. Should be okay, I think, as all three images are public domain.
- Thebom should be identified as a mezzo-soprano
- Paragraph 3 - Richard Strauss again
- The list of guest conductors at the end of para 5 is a bit too long - maybe trim to the most distinguished of the names?
Done.
- "Leningrad" should be pipe-linked to St Petersburg
- As you give the composers for the other Moscow works, perhaps it should be "Holst's The Planets.
A little more to do, then I'm finished. The article is most informative and makes good reading. Brianboulton (talk) 22:26, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This is of the greatest help – thank you. Tim riley (talk) 20:17, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
These are my final comments:-
- Later years
- (per earlier point): I don't think "fallow" or "second eleven" are really worthy of quote marks
- "...and resumed recording for EMI after a six year break." I assume this also was in 1965, but it would be as well to clarify this.
- "Having recorded much British music, Boult was encouraged to record the orchestral music of Brahms." Slight non sequitur, but more importantly, encouraged by whom?
- By EMI (Christopher Bishop in particular), but on reflection I don't think this sentence is needed, and I have blitzed it.
- Much of the information in the second paragraph (his pre-1960s, his 1940s excursions into Ravel and Busoni, his pre-war Berg) doesn't seem to belong in a section entitled "Later years". One possible solution would be to put this information into a footnote at the end of the sentence about the width of his discography, and resume the main text at "It was a disappointment..."
- Musicianship: not much to comment on here, because Jonyungk has trodden the path before me, but a couple of tiddlers:-
- Pedant's comment: earlier in the article, Boult ran his RCM conducting classes from 1919 to 1930. Now it's 1916-1930
- Pedantry most gratefully received. Typo (1916) now corrected.
- In the list of those influenced by Boult I can't help observing that Tippett is from an earlier generation than the others, also that he was primarily a composer, while all the others are conductors. The list might be better without him.
- Recordings: at the end you refer to "a 1959 Franck Symphony" and "1958 Dvořák Cello Concerto". Obviously I know what you mean, but some readers may think that the years refer to the works rather than the recordings. Also, I'm not convinced that César Franck qualifies for the surname-only club.
- Clarified recording dates. I used to give Franck his full name, but I grinned at, and took note of, this comment from another editor a little while ago: "just Franck will do: it's way past high time we stopped using his full name as if he were some contemporary and/or obscure composer."
That ends my comments. A great effort, I hope you will consider giving it a shot at FAC (as I believe you could have done with Barbirolli - it's never too late!) Brianboulton (talk) 21:05, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I am greatly in your debt for all the above. The article is much improved thereby. I think I will give it a shot at FA: the Barbirolli article seemed to me to be borderline, but this one has a bit more specific gravity, I think. Meanwhile, I await the call to do the necessary for Gustav Mahler when you are ready. - 08:09, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Lead
- Beginning two sentences in a row with "after" reads a little odd.
- Forced to retire from the BBC at the age of 60 in 1950, Boult was immediately invited to take on the chief conductorship of the London Philharmonic (LPO), which had declined from its peak of the 1930s. I know what you're saying here but it sounds awkward. Would it sound smoother if the second part of the sentence read, "Boult took on the chief conductorship ..."?
Early life
- Cedric Boult was a successful businessman connected with Liverpool shipping and the oil trade; he and his family had "a Liberal Unitarian outlook on public affairs."[2] What exactly is a Liberal Uniterian outlook? A brief explanation would help non-British readers.
- Oh dear, this is a minefield! Liberal – as in politically Liberal – is probably self-explanatory, but Unitarian is tricky. It was (perhaps still is) a branch of the Christian church with unorthodox views on the Trinity – but more to the point, in that period, in that part of Britain, Unitarians were frequently well-to-do and were famous for their philanthropy. I can't put all that into the article (and it's POV anyway). Perhaps I should omit the Unitarian and stick to Liberal?
- Or simply add, "and were dedicated to philantrophy".
- At Christ Church, Boult originally read history but switched to music, in which his mentor was Hugh Allen.[3][5] A similar problem here: does "read" mean "studied"? It's a little confusing when compared to the next time you use "read".
- Please picture an Anglo-Saxon blush crossing my cheek. How parochial one's prose can be. Yes, at English universities "reading" a subject means that it is your principal study. I have changed this to "studied"
- In 1909, he read a paper to the Oriana Society entitled Some Notes on Performance, in which he laid down three precepts for an ideal performance: observance of the composer's wishes, clarity through emphasis on balance and structure, and finally, the effect of music made utterly without effort. Two points. First, by read, do you mean "presented" as in a doctoral presentation or "submitted"? Especially since you previously used "read" in a different context, it's a little comfusing for non-British readers. Second, "finally" seems unnecessary.
- Please see preceding blushes. In this context "read" means what it says. Now changed to "presented".
- Boult graduated with a pass degree in 1912.[8] What is a pass degree? Is that like a Bachelor's Degree?
- Truth to tell I'm not sure what a pass degree was at the Oxford of a century ago. It was certainly of lower rank than an honours degree, but whether undergraduates had to do any work to get it or whether it was dished out merely for being there, I know not. Boult later (1914) got an honours degree (in music) but I have not mentioned that, as there was no convenient place to put it. Do you think it would help if I put a note saying (which is certainly true) that a pass degree was the lowest class of degree awarded by the university?
- It would avoid any confusion.
- Boult admired Nikisch "not so much for his musicianship but his amazing power of saying what he wanted with a bit of wood. He spoke very little", a style consistent with Boult's opinion that "all conductors should be clad in an invisible Tarnhelm which makes it possible to enjoy the music without seeing any of the antics that go on."[9] Would this sentence read better split into two?
First conducting work
- Should "Zeppelin" be linked?
- I believe links are not encouraged within quotations, but have slipped one in. It can always come out again if anyone objects.
- In his spare time he organised and conducted concerts, some of which were subsidised by his father, aiming both to give work to orchestral players and to bring music to a wider audience.[14] Would this read better: "...with the aims of giving work to orchestral players and bringing ..."?
- It would. Done. You have no idea how much grief this seemingly innocuous sentence has caused me. I am so grateful to you and Brianboulton for rescuing me.
- In contrast to this theatrical work, he also took on an academic post. Do you need the first part of this sentence? Seems like this was a simple addition of work rather than a contrast or contradiction.
Birmingham
- Boult programmed as much innovative repertoire as practical, including music by Mahler, Stravinsky and Bruckner, although any departures from the familiar repertoire depressed the box-office takings, requiring subsidies from private benefactors, including Boult's family.[24] This sentence feels a little long and awkward. Is there to rephrase or split it?
- While with the Birmingham orchestra, Boult had the opportunity to conduct a number of operas ..." Why not just say "Boult conducted"?
- The point I am trying to make is that this was a big deal for Boult. All his life he longed to conduct more opera but hardly ever got the chance. I'd prefer to leave this as drawn, or thereabouts.
- In the same sentence, ... chiefly with the British National Opera Company, for whom he conducted Die Walküre and Otello. Is it "for whom" or "for which", since you are referring to a corporation?
BBC Symphony Orchestra
- The Observer called the playing "altogether magnificent" and said that Boult "deserves an instrument of this fine calibre to work on, and the orchestra deserves a conductor of his efficiency and insight."[34] With all the "ands" in this sentence, this sentence feels lankier than it should. What about replacing the first "and" with a semi-colon and "it said"?
- I am afraid of the Semi-Colon Demon who comes to torment Wikipedians who dare to use that punctuation mark. I have redrafted to eliminate an "and" without risking the Demon's wrath.
- British premières including Alban Berg's opera Wozzeck and Berg's Three Movements from the Lyric Suite,[37] ... The second "Berg's" seems extraneous? Also, should "Three Movements from the Lyric Suite" or "Lyric Suite" be linked?
- The beginning of the fourth paragraph needs a transitional phrase for the material so smoothly move from the end of the third paragraph. Was it the excellence of the orchestra under Boult that attracted guest conductors? Saying so (if this was true) would give such a transition.
- It was indeed true (and well documented). I have so amended.
- During this period, Boult accepted some international guest conductorships,... Could this be the beginning of a new paragraph, rather than a continuation of the previous one?
- For many years, Boult had been a close friend of the tenor Steuart Wilson and ..." This paragraph feels jumbled, with its mention of the fallout from the divorce on Wilson, then the lack of fallout on Boult. Is this information necessary? If so, could it be incorporated more smoothly into the paragraph?
- The fallout sentence is there for two purposes. First to set the scene for Wilson's later vengeance, and secondly – truth to tell – as a segue into the sentence, which I couldn't otherwise attach seamlessly, about the Coronation. I'd rather leave this, I think.
- I can see your point. What about adding a transition to this information: "The enmity it provoked in Wilson, however, had repercussions in Boult's later career,[47] especially as the stigma attached to divorce in Britain in the 1930s which affected Wilson professionally (for instance, the cathedral authorities barred him from performing at the Three Choirs Festival) did not affect Boult, who ..."
More to come. Jonyungk (talk) 15:44, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This is all top-notch stuff! Thank you so much. I look forward to more when convenient to you. – Tim riley (talk) 17:40, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Continuing ...
BBC Orchestra (continued)
- Boult strove to maintain standards and morale as he lost key players: between 1939 and the end of the war, forty players left for active service or other activities.[1] Should the colon here actually be a semi-colon?
- Have split into two sentences. Not too staccato, I think.
- This move, made as a favour to the composer Arthur Bliss in order to provide a suitable war-time job for him ... You don't really need "in order".
- This move, made as a favour to the composer Arthur Bliss in order to provide a suitable war-time job for him, later came to be Boult's undoing at the BBC.[49] In these years he made recordings of Elgar's Second Symphony ... Nothing is wrong with these sentences per se, and I know you are foreshadowing Boult's demise at the BBC with the first sentence. There still needs to be a transition between these two sentences to make things less jarring. Maybe adding "Meanwhile" to the beginning of the second sentence would be enough.
- At the end of the war, Kennedy records, Boult "found a changed attitude to the orchestra in the upper echelons of the BBC and had to fight hard to restore it to its pre-war glory."[1] Does this sentence actually belong to the paragraph that follows it, since it refers to the post-WWII era?
- I see what you mean. I've now tried it in both paras, and I think it sits more happily in the first.
- In 1948 Steuart Wilson was appointed head of music at the BBC, the post previously occupied by Boult and Bliss, and used it ... And used what? I would guess the privileges of rank, but it would be good to say so.
London Philharmonic
- After it became clear that Boult would not be able to retain his position with the BBC ... This reads a little lumpy. Removing "be able to" might smooth things out.
- Boult was well-known to the orchestra, having been among the musicians who came it its aid in 1940.[54] This sentence comes as a surprise since you do not mention Boult's efforts in this regard earlier. How did he come to the aid of the orchestra in 1940? Answering this question briefly would help.
- Info added in footnote – better there, I think, than in the main text.
- The need to earn money obliged the orchestra to play many more concerts than its rivals. In the 1949–50 season, the LPO gave 248 concerts, compared with 55 by the BBC Symphony Orchestra, 103 by the London Symphony Orchestra, and 32 apiece by the Philharmonia and Royal Philharmonic orchestras.[55] Good information here, but how successful were the concerts in raising funds? A brief mention at the end would be good.
- Alas, I cannot find this information. We know the LPO survived (and still does) so this huge workload must have raised enough money to keep the orchestra afloat.
- The symphonies they played were Beethoven's Seventh, Haydn's London ... Which London symphony, as there are 12 of them? I know you have it linked, but mentioning the symphony number would help.
- A less happy aspect of 1952 was the acrimony surrounding the dismissal of Thomas Russell from his position as the LPO's managing director. This is a very lumpy sentence but there may be no way around it. What about "A less happy aspect of 1952 was the acrimony surrounding the dismissal of managing director Thomas Russell"?
- Pruned thus: A less happy aspect of 1952 was the acrimonious dismissal of Thomas Russell as the LPO's managing director.
- Boult, as the orchestra's chief conductor, stood up for Russell, but when matters came to a head Boult ceased to protect him, and, deprived of that crucial support, Russell was forced out. The sentence itself is clear but feels a little long. Would splitting it help?
- Boult had not wished to go on the tour because flying hurt his ears, and long land journeys hurt his back, but when the Soviet authorities threatened to cancel the tour if he did not lead it, he agreed to go.[64] Same thing here: an otherwise fine sentence feels long.
Later years
- Nevertheless, he was invited as a guest conductor to Vienna, Amsterdam and Boston.[68] Would this read better if rephrased "invited to guest conduct in Vienna ..."?
- In 1964 he made no recordings, but in 1965 he began an association with Lyrita records, an independent label specialising in British music, and made his first EMI recording for six years.[68] Not so sure about the last part of this sentence. Do you mean that the recording for EMI was his first in six years, or that it would be his last for six years?
- Celebrations for his eightieth birthday in 1969 ... Since you use a number for the 21se anniversary of the LSO, should you use a number for "eightieth" as well?
- Very true. I'll check the whole article for consistency.
- Having recorded much British music, he was encouraged ... Since this is the beginning of a new paragraph, "Boult" instead of "he"?
- Having recorded much British music, he was encouraged to record the orchestral music of Brahms, whose Third Symphony filled a spare recording session in August 1970 and led to a series of recordings of Brahms, Wagner, Schubert, Mozart and Beethoven.[72] I know you hate the semi-colon demon, but somehow splitting this sentence would render it less awkward.
- Split into three and mildly redrawn.
- Not only did he conduct seven of the nine Mahler symphonies well before the Mahler revival of the 1960s,[73] but he also programmed Ravel's complete ballet Daphnis et Chloé and Ferruccio Busoni's rarely-staged opera Doktor Faust in the late 1940s, and held Berg's Wozzeck to be a masterpiece, even if he preferred the more tonal final section.[74] Same here as in the previous sentence mentioned—this sentence becomes more awkward the longer it gets.
- Yes indeed! Split into three.
Musicianship
- 65 years later, in an obituary tribute ... Since this is the beginning of a sentence, "65" should be spelled out.
- Grove's Dictionary similarly said of him: It would be nice to know who wrote the Groves entry and use that name instead.
- Another feature of Boult's music-making was his care for balance. This sentence sounds redundant the way you phrase it now. What about "This care for balance was an important feature of Boult's music-making", or something like that? This way, the sentence acts as a transition to the rest of the following paragraph.
- The trombonist Ray Premru wrote forty years later ... Are you going to spell out two-digit numbers or use numbers? You should be consistent.
- Very true. Am checking all number formats in the article.
- As no such classes had been held before in Britain, Boult "created its curriculum from out of his own experience. … The quote would read better as "from ... his own experience" or "... out of his own ..."
- The latter, I think. Perfectly well represents what is meant and is easier on the eye.
Recordings
- His recordings fall into three main periods. Should be "Boult's" as this sentence begins a new paragraph.
- His last period, from the mid-1960s, sometimes referred to as his Indian Summer, was once again with HMV, where, with his regular collaborators the producer Christopher Bishop and the engineer Christopher Parker, he made more than sixty recordings, re-recording much of his key repertory in stereo and adding many works to his discography that he had not recorded before.[95] This is a very long sentence. Better split?
- Split into three. Much better.
- All these recording have been reissued on CD. "Recordings" instead of "recording"?
- In the core continental orchestral repertoire, Boult's recordings of the four symphonies of Brahms, and the Great C major Symphony of Schubert ... Should the Great C major Symphony be linked?
- It's linked earlier, in the LPO section. I think that's probably enough, but this second mention is several sections later, so a repeat link is not out of the question.
Hope this helps. Jonyungk (talk) 22:54, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It does indeed, and I'm most grateful. Thank you very much. – Tim riley (talk) 20:17, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]