# Talk:Malcolm Sargent

Under the section private life is the following on Sargent's wife Eileen Horne: "Sargent's biographers differ on her background. Aldous states that she was a maid in domestic service, whereas Reid notes that she was a keen rider, with many friends in hunting circles, and that her uncle (who officiated at her wedding to Sargent) was rector of Drinkstone, Suffolk".
From the Ancestry web site we can find that in the 1911 census Eileen Horne, aged 12 is living with her parents Frederick aged 44, Alice aged 42 and sister Beryl aged 13 at Beyton Grange, Beyton, near Bury St Edmunds.  Frederick describes himself as miller, coal merchant, carter and farmer. Beyton Grange had 11 rooms and there were three live in staff, a butler, a cook and a housemaid.  This is hardly the family of a maid in domestic service.
Frederick died in 1940 leaving £956 17s and was living at The Mill House, Beyton, which is next door to Beyton Grange where he was in 1911. Incidentally Frederick was born in Drinkstone and educated at Charterhouse as was his brother Francis Herbert Horne who was rector of Drinkstone from 1913 to 1938. All this suggests that Reid's version is correct, or at least that Aldous's in not.--Welkinridge (talk) 18:30, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

User:Tim riley, would you please comment? -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:11, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
I always felt Aldous had some agenda or other. He is reliable, I think, as to facts, but he puts some very strange spin on many of them. An innocent reader could come away from his book believing that Boult was a monster, that Sargent founded the London Philharmonic with some minor help from Beecham, that Barbirolli was a worldly money-grubber, and many other wilful distortions. Aldous also plays that disgusting journalistic trick of saying that such-and-such an unpleasant assertion has been made about so-and-so, but he has found no evidence to support it—thus leaving the reader with the feeling that there’s no smoke without fire. In short, I agree with Welkinridge, and I'm glad this exchange will remain on the record here for anyone interested to see. I don't think we should materially change the text of the article, though. The wording we use, correctly reproduced above, is wholly factual – x says abc, y says def – and it would be wrong to put our own interpretation in the text. We might perhaps go as far as to change "Aldous states" to "Aldous suggests", but no further, I'd say. What do Welkinridge and Ssilvers think? Tim riley talk  13:46, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
Later: there is what seems to me a perceptive and fair-minded review of Aldous's book here, which makes the same point I make above about the founding of the LPO and Aldous's misinterpretation of facts. Tim riley talk  14:14, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
I didn't feel that I could change the article at all and that's why I put my comments on the talk page. This is an article about Malcolm Sargent after all and not about his wife and doesn't justify a long explanation in the main article. In a few years time the 1921 census will be published which should show the status of Eileen just before her marriage which may clarify things a bit. Personally I think the text should stay the same, after all Aldous did state, even if he was wrong.--Welkinridge (talk) 18:33, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, Welkinridge.  As soon as the 1921 census is published, or if a Biography is published that discusses Eileen more definitively, we can regroup. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:31, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
I have replaced "More casual encounters" with "Less savoury encounters". The woman was clearly pleading NOT to have to have any kind of sex with Sargent. --Hugh7 (talk) 00:28, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

The New York appearances on Toscanini's invitation seem, at least partially, to have been recorded and a selection appears on CD.   It reveals that-presumably to comply with radio time limits, Menuhin and Sargent were happy to play the Elgar Violin Concerto in an abbreviated form omitting the cadenza.Delahays (talk) 14:47, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

.User:Delahays, are you suggesting a change to the article? -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:19, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
It seems to me to that it might be considered to reflect on at least one aspect of the professionalism of both artists, (not to mention the attitudes of NBC - any such cut would be out of the question now, and rare even then)and the disc (which is currently on sale) itself is certainly firm evidence.  I would not object to its inclusion. But a former colleague, a bass-trombonist who'd played in Harty's Halle and was then with the BBC , who once played for Sargent at short notice in a work with which he was unfamiliar ,and discovered the programme only on arrival immmediately before the concert (" I don't know this.  Who's carving?" "Flash" "I'd better go and see him, then") found that for every entry he was exactly cued and had no difficulty whatsoever,and that Sargent could not have been more considerate.   There are many other similar stories of Sargent's professionalism. Delahays (talk) 06:18, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
Again, what change, if any, are you suggesting that we make to the article, exactly, and what WP:Reliable sources should we cite for such changes? See WP:V and WP:BALASP. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:34, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

This article has a number of shortcomings that, I think, can be mended easily by editors with the requisite source material handy. I'll point out three.
The first is the page range cited for the passage that concludes the "Musical reputation and repertoire" sub-section. Not only does it present a long list of composers whose music MS conducted, it also includes a statement that, save for a single work by Berg, he avoided Schoenberg and his students. It then proceeds to present another list of composers from the 20th century whose music MS also conducted. The single reference that appears cites not one, but two books across a disparate range of pages totaling nine altogether. Two or sometimes possible even three continuous pages in a single book is fine. But the reference here doesn't clearly tell me where I could confirm this information. Supposing one just wanted to learn that MS conducted Shostakovich or the Berg Violin Concerto, or that MS shunned Schoenberg, exactly which book and pages would one find that exactly? 

Both Reid and Aldous are available free online. Feel free to read them and suggest some alternative page numbering for this section. Tim riley talk 19:27, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
In "Overseas and Australia", there is another passage that discusses his travels in the 1960s. It then cites two sources within the same citation, one of which is marked "pages not numbered". Aside from the possible confusion that could result from using one citation for two sources, why are there no exact page numbers cited for the second source?

Duh! The pages in the book are not numbered! Tim riley talk 19:27, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
@Tim riley: My guy—please dial back the 'tude. This isn't personal and being told "duh" by an editor who otherwise does admirable work here is not helpful. If the source has no pagination, the citation certainly confused me into thinking it did. And it still doesn't explain why a single cite is being used for two sources. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 20:31, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
You surprise me: "pages not numbered" seems to me pretty clear. Why would that confuse anyone into thinking it meant anything other than what it says? Tim riley talk 20:38, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
I don't know. When I saw "pages not numbered", I believed in good-faith that they were being withheld for some reason. Thought it was odd too, but in the context of other oddities in this article, it seemed plausible to me at the time. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 20:44, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
OK. I hear you, as the Scots say. Tim riley talk 20:49, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
More serious is an unsubstantiated implication at the end of the "Private life" section. What exactly does "[l]ess respectable encounters are alluded to" mean here? Is MS being accused of something? If so, let's say it forthrightly if there is evidence from reliable sources. At the moment, the only source is a possibly apocryphal quote from an unnamed "young lady". What did she mean precisely? That passage is loaded, speculative, uninformative, and unencyclopedic. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 06:52, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

I disagree. The source is plain enough. Sargent was notoriously, in the phrase of the time, NSIT. See if you can obtain a consensus for your proposed alterations, and perhaps, meanwhile, even read the source? Tim riley talk 19:22, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
@Tim riley: If the source is plain enough, why is his behavior being described euphemistically? What does "less savory" mean precisely? Was he not seasoned enough to this nameless young woman's liking? Again, if the source is clear about what precisely MS did or was accused of doing, then why the resistance to simply stating this forthrightly for the reader's benefit? Incidentally, even if he was NSIT (my first time reading this term), does the source itself explicitly say that and why or did other editors deduce this conclusion independently? —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 20:21, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
I suggest you read the source. It is available free of charge online. Tim riley talk 20:38, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
Again, if it's there and open (where?), why the resistance to simply state directly what is implied here? There is nothing in the MOS that explains the resistance to forthrightness here. I'm not against explaining to the reader any details of Sargent's personal conduct, good or bad—let me be clear. But it's the deliberately obfuscatory language here that is the problem. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 20:49, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
If you allow your eye to stray up this page you will see that another editor changed "casual" to "unsavoury" last year to make the point that it was non-consensual. I had no objection to the change at the time and still haven't. Tim riley talk 14:15, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
Noted. Seems pretty clear to me, as it presumably has done to both main editors and the independent GA reviewer. Try the wonderful, invaluable Internet Archive for free access to the sources. Let's see if anyone else agrees with you. Tim riley talk 21:20, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
@Tim riley and Ssilvers: The GA review occurred almost twenty years ago, back when standards about these kinds of these seemed a lot more lax than today. Even if the passing of time since the review weren't an issue, the shortcomings in this article are real. Aside from the ones already mentioned, there also seems to be POV/balance problems here. Therefore, a reassessment of the article would likely be useful.
We gave the article a comprehensive overhaul in 2021. Tim riley talk 09:21, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
As for the allegation against Sargent, the source itself is also unclear. More importantly, it discusses Sargent only tangentially, one of many other targets of the author's mincing gossip. The passage that deals with the conductor specifically is:
So glad you enjoyed the Lit. Soc. Tom Eliot is a pet, isn't he? So natural, humorous, and unpretentious. [Malcolm Sargent] (though clearly a bounder) is good company occasionally, and very friendly. Did I tell you how once at the beginning of a big dinner-party  [sic] at Hamish Hamilton's I was approached by a very pretty girl whom I scarcely knew? 'Will you promise me something?' she asked earnestly, out of the blue. 'Anything', I gallantly replied, strengthened by a powerful Martini. 'Promise me', she said, 'that whatever happens I shan't have to go home alone in a taxi with Malcolm Sargent'. I duly promised, but later regretted my quixotry, since we had to wait till the small hours before [he] gave up the chase, and then of course I had to escort the young lady to South Kensington.
Given the full quote and its context, not only is the "savory" passage in this article unambiguously unacceptable according to MOS:EUPHEMISM, MOS:WEASEL, and WP:SUBSTANTIATE, but it also needs to be modified or cut per WP:VOICE and WP:IMPARTIAL. Because the cited source does not explicitly say what Sargent is being accused of, it appears that editors used WP:SYNTH to arrive at the conclusion that Sargent was "unsavory". It does say he is a "bounder", but does not say why and it isn't connected in the source to the author's insinuation, which is presented parenthetically.
Both you and the other opposing editor are experienced and valuable contributors who know the MOS well. So, please, help me understand: why are you both dodging valid criticisms grounded in the MOS guidelines, instead of working collaboratively to improve this article? —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 23:20, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
From the BBC: ‘He was a terror to women,’ says Michael Kennedy. ‘They’d never travel with him in taxis.’ Not that Sargent was the only musical figure judged NSIT. Walter Legge was another: see [1] this. Tim riley talk
I'm also puzzled as to why the dubious tag I had placed for the Lebrecht quote was removed. According to WP:NOTRS:
Questionable sources are those that have a poor reputation for checking the facts... Such sources include websites and publications expressing views widely considered by other sources to be promotional... or relying heavily on unsubstantiated gossip, rumor, or personal opinion. Questionable sources should be used only as sources for material on themselves, such as in articles about themselves; see below. They are not suitable sources for contentious claims about others.
To my knowledge, Lebrecht's blog is not an accepted reliable source. So why is his book, which  his article admits is suspect, treated as a reliable source for anything here? —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 23:57, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
If you can find Norman Lebrecht on any Wikipedia blacklist please let us know. He has made more than 200 broadcasts for BBC Radio 3, and has been the music columnist of The Daily Telegraph. Tim riley talk 09:21, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
Hard to imagine a more condescending critique.  The leading item is that you think too many pages of two books are cited in listing the composers upon whose music Sargent focused to give specific guidance to researchers.  Aw.  The poor researchers will have to look at 9 pages to verify all of this information.   And have you never heard of bundling sources?  What?  And yes, "pages not numbered" means "the book's pages are not numbered".  I never imagined that anyone would be confused by that. I was curious to find out what astonishing WP articles might be written such a superior and exacting person. I just read Tema "Sacher".  Unimpressed.  As Tim said above, feel free to attempt to raise a WP:CONSENSUS for your expert suggestions.  As you say, nearly 20 years have gone by an no one else has excoriated us for these items before, so perhaps they are not all as problematic as you feel they are. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:06, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Good point. And as Wikilawyering seems de rigueur here, one wonders why Currytime thinks MOS:TIES does not apply to him/her. Tim riley talk 09:21, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
Let me sum up:

Citations for Sargent's repertoire: a shocking nine different pages. Ahem! No suggestions forthcoming from CurryTime for a different citation arrangement.
Sexual advances on unwilling young women in taxis are not unsavoury? The adjective was inserted by another editor last year and I concur.
The article was passed GA in 2007 and confirmed in 2009 – shockingly antique – but the article had a thorough update and overhaul in 2021.
Cited page numbers are not given for pages in the book with unnumbered pages – ahem, again, and only because I've been told not to say the obvious "duh".
Lebrecht is allegedly unreliable as a source – see the comments on his BBC and Daily Telegraph credentials.
Have I omitted anything? I think this summary should otherwise conclude this long-winded debate. Tim riley talk 15:22, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
@Tim riley and Ssilvers: The BBC link says:
Knowledge of Sargent's eager networking in society and royal circles added to the impression of someone too full of himself to identify with "mere" orchestral musicians. Ditto his multiple extramarital liaisons with the well-bred and blue-blooded, something over which his otherwise attentive biographer Charles Reid chose to draw a blackout curtain of a veil. "He was a terror to women", says Michael Kennedy. "They'd never travel with him in taxis".
Putting aside why you're pointing me to a link that is not used as a cited source in the article, it still doesn't say exactly what Sargent was being accused of. Was he a rapist? Was he simply very persistent in trying to get this young lady's digits? (The context of the above quote seems to suggest that the latter meaning was intended, although it doesn't specifically say that either.) Describing something as "unsavory" without stating forthrightly why is vague and meaningless—that's my point. Just write down precisely what he was if there is evidence that can be cited to say he was. I'd do it myself, except I'm unable to find any sources at the moment that confirm anything about Sargent beyond vague innuendo. The MOS is clear: euphemisms, unfounded rumors, and synthesized conclusions, even if persistently championed by two editors whose objections seem to be founded on nothing more than personal preference, are unacceptable. Am I missing something here?
I get that sometimes it can be unnerving to have a new editor suddenly show up and bring up faults in an article you've long worked on and helped build up, especially one who is likely half of your ages. It's happened to me; it can be deflating to one's ego at times. But I move on with the understanding that a fresh perspective can be helpful and that, at the end of the day, I'm only one of many people doing their small, wee, insignificant part to improve Wikipedia; in my case, its classical music articles in particular. So, please, spare me your sarcasm, personal attacks, and generally evasive replies. Because I disagree in good-faith with you doesn't mean you have a license to descend into incivility against me. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 21:45, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

(edit conflict) ”am I missing something here?” Yes, a consensus for change and basic manners, as you seem to be taking cheap shots with own accusations (two people disagreeing with someone who is in the wrong isn’t ownership). The passage reads okay to me, is inline with the policies and procedures and reflects the sources. - SchroCat (talk) 21:52, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
If I took cheap shots, I retract the comments in question and apologize to you and the other two editors right now. It was not my intention to take any personal shots at anyone. However, my concerns with this article remain. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 22:14, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
We are summarizing Sargent's reputation. Though the press of the day was not willing to specify the exact acts, it is clear that they are saying that he would touch women sexually in taxis.  These are not "unfounded" rumors; they were so well founded that they were common knowledge. This is not synthesis, and the euphemisms are not ours, but rather the sources'. I demand that you retract your false and odious accusation of WP:OWN. If you do not have better sources than are used here, then please go do some research and then come back, and we will be all ears. If you still cannot identify your errors, start by noting that the heading of this discussion is offensive, because ALL WP articles have "room for improvement". That is the nature of encyclopedia articles: they can never be perfect.  It was offensive of you to imply that this article has more "room for improvement" than others.  Instead, what happened is that you focused on this one.  Tim riley, in particular, has done outstanding work to improve this article, and your accusations were rude and ignorant.  Unfortunately, you are not suggesting well-referenced improvements, but merely noting things in the sources found to date that you feel ought to have better refs.  So, go find them.  -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:27, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Things have cooled off, hopefully, since the WP:DR decision. My conduct to you was not helpful in January; for that I sincerely apologize to all of you once again.
The pagination of sources, which I'd previously brought up, is unimportant upon reflection. However, amelioration of a few passages where Sargent is written about in a less than impartial manner may be helpful. Lebrecht's view that Sargent almost destroyed the quality of the BBCSO, for example, is highly contentious. One may prefer other interpretations, but none of their recordings evince an orchestra that was "almost wrecked". In the same section, another paragraph begins: "It did not help that Sargent was universally acknowledged to be at his finest in choral music". This opening phrase seems to run against the guidelines in MOS:EDITORIAL and WP:IMPARTIAL; another passage beginning with "Even orchestral musicians" has a similar issue.
Again, the rest of the article is very fine. What would be welcome now is a bit of spot-buffing to bring the article into a uniformly shiny gloss. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 21:43, 14 March 2025 (UTC)