Talk:John Field (composer)

message: Page move news:  By going to "What Links Here," I saw that a number of the pages that linked to John Field were trying to link to a supposed article on the 16th century British Puritan.  There is no article on the Puritan.  Therefore, John Field will now be a disambiguation, with John Field (composer) referring to this fellow and John Field (divine) referring to the Puritan.  I went through the linked-by pages and attempted to correct them all.  I apologize if I have missed any. Geogre 04:49, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page move 

message: The article mentions that Field was born in Golden gate, Dublin. Couldn't find anything on it. What's that all about? Thanks. Dr. Dan (talk) 08:59, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for posting this query. It seems to be the result of so far undetected subtle vandalism from August 2009! In this revision from 22 July 2009, it read "Field was born in Golden Lane," but after these edits it became Golden gate. It is now fixed. -84user (talk) 13:36, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Great, but is this a neighborhood or a street (lane)? If it's the latter, shouldn't it read "on Golden Lane" rather than "in Golden Lane"? Maybe it's a British vs. American English language issue. Thanks. Dr. Dan (talk) 16:46, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

text: It appears to be a street. http://www.jstor.org/pss/30100044 has "John Field was born at Golden Lane", http://www.jstor.org/pss/30104278 describes Golden Lane as a "respectable locality", and the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica has "born at Dublin". This bio has "John Field - the son of Robert Field, of Golden Lane, Dublin - was born on July 26, 1782, and was baptized at St. Werburgh's Church on September 30 of the same year." Page 7 of this tourist walking guide describe Golden Lane as crossing Bride Street. "born in" appears more often than "born at" for various British or Irish street names, while "born on" sounds strange to my British ears. Could be a question for the WP:Reference_desk/Language. -84user (talk) 15:39, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Golden Gate

message: Is it necessary to specify that one date is Julian and the other Gregorian? There is a simple convention used by historians of writing dates 11/23rd of July, or whatever, indicating a twelve-day discrepancy between English and continental. However, Field's birth date was many years after the UK adopted the continental calendar, so why are two dates needed? Is there a problem somewhere with Russian dates (which were not reformed until 1920 or so)?
:There is no need to specify two dates. I've changed that, also noting the uncertainty of the exact date of birth (as per Grove Online). --Jashiin (talk) 12:58, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Dates

message: Henrietta Van Laer says: I have found three sources on Google books that confirm this anecdote. The following book seems to be the best source, as it is a new and complete biography. The reply Field made needs to be quoted in French as it was a pun:-      The life and music of John Field, 1782-1837, creator of the nocturne‎ - Page 97-98 
Patrick Piggott - Biography & Autobiography - 1973 - 287 pages
... of his illness Field's death was actually the result of an attack of 
pneumonia, ... asked him if he would like to have the ministrations of a priest. 
.[the priest asked him if he was a Catholic, a Protestant or a Calvinist." Field replied with a characteristic pun] 
“I am not a Calvinist, but a Claveciniste…”
The same anecdote is told in   Composers of Yesterday‎ - Page 147
David Ewen - Biography & Autobiography - 2007 - 500 pages
At one time, shortly before his death, a priest engaged him m conversa- lion "
Are you a Protestant ?" the priest asked John Field smiled a polite denial "A .....etcHenriettaVanLaer (talk) 21:01, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your help. I've put in a reference to Piggott's work; that should be enough. --Jashiin (talk) 12:58, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Last Words

message: Small point; Field was not in the Protestant Ascendancy, which was the Irish landed gentry and nobility.86.42.223.139 (talk) 20:48, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Not in the "ascendancy"

message: What is the source, and significance, of the parenthetical numbering of the nocturnes? I see the same situation at Nocturnes (Field), again with no explanation. My question arises because I have a CD of John O'Conor playing "15 Nocturnes" (Telarc 80199), of 18 numbered nocturnes, with the note "Nocturne numbering: Edition Peters". I can list these here for reference (but my sloppy abbreviations will need to be excused):
*I in E-b
*II in c
*IV in A
*V in B-b
*VI in F
*VIII in A
*IX in E-b
*X in e
*XI in E-b
*XII in G
*XIII in d
*XIV in C
*XV in C
*XVI in F
*XVIII Midi in E
These appear to match the numbering not in parentheses. No explanation is given in the booklet notes for the inclusion of the "Midi" as being Nocturne XVIII.
(Hm. This is probably a dangerous question to ask here - I can already guess the response of one music editor who believes that only the most recent scholarship should be noted at Wikipedia, regardless of what users may find in older sources, and be curious about.) Milkunderwood (talk) 06:47, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  the nocturnes - parenthetical numbering?