# Talk:The Blue Bird (Stanford)

I know there are several other recordings, including complete ones of op. 119. The Cambridge Singers is just one I happen to own. David Brooks (talk) 16:32, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

I found some more, but I expect there are others. David Brooks (talk) 02:30, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
I've expanded the discography and clarified that the section is a "Selected" discography. I imagine there's plenty of more amateur recordings which would expand the section even more, but I've focussed on ones from notable choirs and conductors. Unexpectedlydian (talk) 14:25, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

I am interested in expanding this article and have found some sources which cover its background and composition. I'll start expanding upon those themes. I'm also just going through the existing sources in the article. Starting from the top, I'm wondering if [1] and [2] are particularly reliable? [1] appears to be a blog, and [2] a programme note. If I come across the same information in another reliable source I may replace the citation. Unexpectedlydian (talk) 12:43, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Blue Bird (Stanford)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: MarioSoulTruthFan (talk · contribs) 11:30, 22 June 2022 (UTC)


### Infobox
You need to create an infobox musical composition, see Gubben Noak for something similar.
Done, let me know what you think.
You don't need the languange because its in english. You left the composer (melody) out (remove it from the top of the infobox), where it as first published and the scoring has to be also cited in the article. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 22:25, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
As discussed below, the scoring is basic information which can be derived from the score itself so is unlikely to come under original research and does not need a citation. I've added the publisher (Stainer & Bell) and made the other changes to the infobox. Unexpectedlydian (talk) 11:18, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
I replied to this before reading below. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 15:28, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 Done


### Lead
It is one of Stanford's most renowned partsongs[1] → you can remove the reference as it already in the body of the article
Done.
I don't think you understood what I meant. Keep the information but remove the source. It is already in the body of the article. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 22:26, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
I had removed the source, but then added it back in again after adding the quote from Dibble (see point below). I think it's a handy quote, and from probably the most relevant musicologist in relation to Stanford. Unexpectedlydian (talk) 11:18, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
I'm not saying otherwise. However, remove the quote. You don't need it as it is sourced in the body of the article. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 15:33, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
Thanks, have changed to: "It was widely performed by choral societies in England during Stanford's life and is considered one of the best English partsongs ever written." Unexpectedlydian♯4talk‽ 13:44, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
You can add information that is contained on the Assessments and reception section, another example from the Selected discography
Done - added Dibble quote.
Add something relevant from the Structure and analysis section here
Added the choir it is written for - interesting because of the divided altos (not SATB as would be normal).
We lost the interesting assertion that it is often (in my admittedly limited experience) performed by SATB with one or a small number of sopranos on the top line, because we couldn't find a RS. Can one or more of the recordings be used as a reference? David Brooks (talk) 00:22, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
Hmm, tricky one. Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical music/Guidelines advises that "In general, it is permitted to make factual observations based on examination of the musical score of a work", not the recordings. This feels like a borderline case. What do you and @MarioSoulTruthFan think?
I think I'm prepared to lose this one, unless you can find something in Dibble. I'd point out, though, that the word "I" only appears in the soprano line (vide Bitner). But that is definitely OR. David Brooks (talk) 14:28, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
I agree, that's borderline and let's not push it and mainly not risking OR. However, if a reliable source with it is found. It will be fine. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 15:40, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
Thanks both, I'll leave for now, but if I find a reliable source on my travels I will update! Unexpectedlydian♯4talk‽ 13:53, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 Done


### Background
Rename to Context
Done.
Wikilink partsongs
Done.
The form first became influential → The arrangement first became influential in England when → moved these and the previous sentences to the end of the background section.
"The form" in this sentence is referring to the partsong as a form of music. I have reworded to make that clearer.
Before composing The Blue Bird, Stanford → Before composing The Blue Bird, Charles Villiers Stanford
Done.
"Before composing The Blue Bird, Stanford had already established himself as an accomplished writer of partsongs. He began by writing three collections of Elizabethan-style partsongs, the first of which (Op. 47, 1892) was praised by the Musical Times as being among the best of their kind." → source?
The source is Ref[7]. I have copied the reference at the end of this sentence to make it clearer.
Op. 127 – published by Stainer & Bell[4] – which → Op. 127, published by Stainer & Bell[4], which
Done.
Almost done. You still have to re-arange the sentences, see the secod point. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 22:27, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
Which sentences? (sorry!) Unexpectedlydian (talk) 11:18, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
I will make the change, however that a look below. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 15:35, 25 June 2022 (UTC)


### Structure and analysis
Retitle the section to Music and verse form, it should be a subsection, along with the section "text", under Song or Epistle
Sorry, not sure what you mean here. Do you mean Heading: Music and verse form. Subheading: Structure and analysis. Subheading: Text. ?
Almost there. Heading: Song or Epistle; Subheading (1): Music and verse form; Subheading (2): Text
Thank you - done.
The Blue Bird is in the key of G-flat major and is scored for an ensemble in five parts: soprano, divided contraltos, tenor, and bass. → source?
I don't think this sentence needs a source. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical music/Guidelines, particularly the subheading Descriptions based on the score. "In general, it is permitted to make factual observations based on examination of the musical score of a work. Such observations should be limited to those agreed upon by virtually anyone with musical training". It is clear that the piece is scored for SAATB, and that it is in G flat major. That is about as far as you can go without having to cite a source.
Fine, but do you have a source? MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 22:38, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
The source is right there in the infobox, and as UnexpectedlyLydian says we can base this assertion on the score. Do you really want the IMSLP link to be hoisted to a footnote? David Brooks (talk) 00:17, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
Happy to add IMSLP as a source but it would require the reader to be musically literate anyway. Statements about the key of a work, when unambiguous, don't need sources.
No, let it be as it is. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 15:43, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
Wikilink G-flat major, soprano, divided contraltos, tenor, and bass.
Done.
major second which features frequently in the piece → what do you mean by this?
The major second is a closely-spaced interval and it is used a lot throughout the piece. I have wikilinked major second to make this clearer.
Nice. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 22:38, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
Wikilink suspended, larghetto tranquillo, E-flat
"Suspended" in this instance most likely refers to the fact that the note is hanging in the air - it is not a musical term. Larghetto tranquillo is a musical term meaning "rather slow" and doesn't have a Wikipedia page. Should I put a translation in the article?
Not a translation, rather a small explanation. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 22:38, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
Done.
[7]) depicts "a perfect picture of a still, hot day". → depicts "a perfect picture of a still, hot day".[7]
That isn't the correct supporting reference - Ref [13] (Rodmell) is. I've moved it to the end of the sentence.
A typical performance lasts around four minutes. → A typical performance lasts around four minutes, varying for each composer. Add it at the end of the first paragraph
Done - changed to conductor rather than composer.
 Done


### Assessments and reception
Retile to Reception and legacy
Done.
Move it before the Selected discography section
Done.
In an address at the composer's centenary, the composer Herbert Howells → what do you mean with "In an address"? On top of that, avoid repetition (composer, composer)
"Address" in this instance means that Herbert Howells addressed (spoke to) the audience at Stanford's centenary, i.e. a formal speech delivered to an audience. I have wikilinked to public speaking - hope this works.
his works,[18] describes → move the source to the end of the sentence
Done.
The second paragraph becomes the first and the first the second
Done.
 Done


### Text
On the image remove "Stanford's"
Good spot, have removed.
Rename to Lyrics
Done.
Use a wikitable to put the poem, see once more Gubben Noak
The Gubben Noak article uses a table to differentiate between translations. The Blue Bird does not sue text that was originally in a different language, so I don't think it needs a table? See these articles on partsongs with English text as a comparison: Lay a garland, The Long Day Closes (song), Three Shakespeare Songs.
They are not GA's or FA's and I don't want to open an exception here. Maybe use bloquotes like in this FA. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 22:35, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
That works and looks good, thank you.
 Done


### Selected discography
No bullet points, please write everyhting in a paragraph
MOS:DISCOGRAPHY seems to allow bullet points. What do you think?
That's for discograhies, this is not a discography. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 22:21, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
I've changed the list to prose now. Unexpectedlydian♯4talk‽ 13:52, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 Done


### References
prestomusic → remove
Done.
John Rutter Composer & Conductor → publisher
I'm not sure what you mean here?
Understand now - have changed to publisher.
Durham University, RTÉ lyric fm, Signum Records and Schola Cantorum of The Cardinal Vaughan Memorial School → publisher, not work
I'm not sure what this means? They are the names of the websites, shall I change to publisher?
Yes. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 22:29, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
Thanks, done.
Bitner, Walter (2020). "Off the Podium". Choral Director. Vol. 17, no. 6. → is this taken from the blog? If so its fine to use since Bitner is an expert on the field, despite being his blog
This is from the Choral Director - I accessed the article in the magazine via Wikipedia Library.
Source check: 2, 3, 9, 11, 12, 14-16, 18 and 26-28
 Done


### External links
Fine


### Overall
Remove the image of Stanford, all that information is already in the body of the article. It doesn't provide anything useful for the article.
Done.
Reduce the size of Coleridge's image
Done.
Let me know once you are done
Hi @MarioSoulTruthFan, thank you for picking up this article for review, and for your quick and comprehensive comments! I have addressed your comments but have also left a few questions. Please do let me know what you think. Many thanks! Unexpectedlydian (talk) 21:29, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
Hi! I believe I went trough all your comments and replied. Let me know once you finish fixing all of it. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 22:39, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
@MarioSoulTruthFan Thank you again for your review, I think I've addressed your outstanding comments now. Let me know what you think! Unexpectedlydian♯4talk‽ 14:02, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 Done


### Question for reviewer and editor
As the original author I don't know the protocols here, but I want to point out that in the current version the opening of Structure and analysis is the third consecutive section that starts by saying the work is a partsong. Isn't that hammering the point a bit too hard? The strophic/homophonic points are valuable, but I think the introductory phrase could be something like "As in many partsongs..." (or maybe something less awkward). David Brooks (talk) 00:35, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion, I've changed the opening line of "Music and verse form" to Partsongs are often strophic and written for multiple voices in a homophonic texture. Unexpectedlydian (talk) 11:18, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for pointing that out. I also want to point out that the "Context" section has a lot of repetition of the word "partsong". 5 instances for such a small section and in consecutive lines, we needs some variation there. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 15:32, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
Thanks, I've changed the section now to reduce the number of "partsongs"! Unexpectedlydian♯4talk‽ 14:00, 26 June 2022 (UTC)


### Thanks
@Unexpectedlydian and MarioSoulTruthFan: I'm overwhelmed by the improvements you have wrought to this article; my last version seems pretty rudimentary now. Even that was helped along by Onel5969. I was moved to create the article when I realized how frequently I was hearing the song on classical streaming stations even in the US, and by some happy memories of Cambridge University in the 60's. I started by uploading my personal copy to IMSLP, and then replicating the first page on Commons, which leads to one request. Since mine happens to be the US imprint, it would be lovely if someone could upload the Stainer & Bell to both places, preferably free of the remains of pencil marks!
I noticed that MSTF corrected "emphasise" to "emphasize". I was tempted to revert that and slap a {{Use British English}} on it, but I'll hold off because since I left the UK, I understand the "z" spelling has become more common (and of course it's Oxford-approved). Still, if another reference is made to the colour, I hope it's spelled that way. David Brooks (talk) 16:09, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm more used to the American English, but feel free to revert that edit (but only that). Since the article is from an UK composer. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 16:21, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
I'll leave that decision to Unexpectedlydian who is probably more familiar with contemporary semi-formal UK conventions. See the relevant MOS entry for the source of my ambivalence on -i[sz]e. David Brooks (talk) 19:19, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
I have changed back to "emphasises" as that is the more common spelling in British English (not a deal-breaker, though). And @DavidBrooks many thanks for creating the article in the first place! Unexpectedlydian♯4talk‽ 13:56, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
I tossed in a {{Use British English}} marker, partly to help EngVarB and partly as a prophylactic against future US-English spelling gnomes (intending no disrespect to MSTF; I'm a gnome myself). I just discovered for the first time {{Use Oxford spelling}} which could have worked if you had gone the other way. David Brooks (talk) 14:47, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

I hate to do this after GA approval, but I think the last sentence of "Context" (The form first became influential...early 19th century choral societies) doesn't really fit there. It belongs near the beginning of "Music and verse form", which provides the generic description of partsong. That said, there may be a conceptual clash between "intimate settings" and "choral societies". @Unexpectedlydian and MarioSoulTruthFan: thoughts? David Brooks (talk) 22:23, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

It makes a "bridge" between sections, its a generic description with some history. The next section describes what really is into detail. Just because it is a GA, nothing is set into stone as articles can/should always be improved. However, I strongly believe both of you, who have a much better comprehension of the subject than I do, can make the right call. So if you too decided to move it somewhere else, I'm fine with it. Cheers, MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 00:47, 28 June 2022 (UTC)