Talk:Pierre Monteux

message: Would it be worth mentioning one amusing aspect of his contract with the London Symphony? They gave him a 25-year contract with an option to extend for another 25 years...this when he was well into his eighties! Wspencer11 14:46, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  LSO contract 

message: :Image:Monteux.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 05:12, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Monteux.jpg

message: I'm wondering about the latest addition, which sounds a bit like damning with faint praise to me, and which I don't think really adds anything terribly useful to the article. Are video and audio airchecks really the only way to defend his, or anyone's, gifts as a performer? What about those unfortunate souls who died before recording was invented? Maybe there's a better way to refer to these materials that doesn't come across quite so dismissively. --Wspencer11 (talk to me...) 19:10, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  M. in the studio 

message: I think this needs checking - I thought although it is possible to have all studio records of Monteux conducting Beethoven symphonies, they are from different orchestras, years and labels. So perhaps the definition of 'cycle' is too elastic? Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 21:06, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Point taken, but until the Karajan cycle of 1963 there was never an "all or nothing" set of the symphonies. Toscanini and Klemperer et al recorded the symphonies ad hoc, as did Monteux. Tim riley (talk) 21:47, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: On reflection, perhaps "recorded all the Beethoven symphonies" would be more neutral. What think you? Tim riley (talk) 17:24, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I would be much happier with your second thoughts. (I think also you are wrong to say “but until the Karajan cycle of 1963 [61-62??] there was never an "all or nothing" set of the symphonies”: Mengelberg, Toscannini? Klemperer? Cluytens? Even Karajan and the Philharmonia in the early 50s pre-date that.) In terms of the introduction to this article maybe it might be nicer to summarize his recorded repertoire by saying it was as wide as his concert repertoire but lacking on the operatic side? I will now do a bit more with my notes of additions. Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 22:54, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: By all means go ahead on the lines you suggest above. Tim riley (talk) 09:13, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Beethoven cycle 

message: I increased the quality assessment of this article to B-class.  Great job, everyone, on the article's progress!  -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:00, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment

message: There is no case for the use of :File:NikolaiRoerichRite1.jpg, an image of Roerich's 1913 designs for The Rite of Spring which is used in that article under a fair use rationale. The image is central to that article; it is only decorative for this article, which contains no discussion of it. I have replaced it with a free image of Roerich's costume designs for The Rite. Brianboulton (talk) 18:27, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Use of non-free image

message: I see that the following was (re)deleted, on the justification that it is marginal information. I disagree: it is about Monteux, his behaviour with regard to close collaborators and his attitude to the integrity of the music he conducted. (No one objected to this at Peer Review.) I propose it go back:
Leading up to the 1913 London performances, Diaghilev's authority was challenged when Monteux declared that he was "Stravinsky's representative" in matters related to Rite of Spring.Buckle, R. Diaghilev. Weidenfeld and Nicolson, London, 1979, p. 258  Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 18:39, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: See your talkpage. I have reiterated the reasons why I think the statement is marginal, but I have also indicated that I don't object to its reinstatement, if that is what you wish. (Incidentally, I did not intend to delete it twice; I simply forgot about the first time). Brianboulton (talk) 00:00, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sentence about M and Rite performances in London 

message: We're told Le Spectre de la Rose premiered on the same occasion as Petrushka.  But Petrushka (ballet) says it premiered on 13 June 1911 in Paris under Monteux, while Le Spectre de la Rose says it premiered on 19 April 1911, in Monte Carlo, with no mention of Monteux.
Something doesn't add up.  --  Jack of Oz [Talk] 09:02, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The text reads: "Petrushka was part of a triple bill, all conducted by Monteux. The other two pieces were Le Spectre de la Rose and Scheherazade..." There is no suggestion here that Le Spectre was premiered on this occasion. It was performed as part of the bill (as indeed it was two years later, at the Le Sacre du Printemps premiere). Brianboulton (talk) 10:17, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Petrushka and Spectre dates

message: While I think the link should stay in, do we need so much about Leplin who is probably less notable than others mentioned? Mousnier and Doris do not mention him and Canarina only in the context of his conducting some of his works while a player in the orchestra. Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 12:20, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur. Perhaps delete "whom Monteux called "Mon étoile-élève", before Leplin was paralyzed by polio and had to consign himself to composing and painting" and turn the comma into a full stop? Tim riley (talk) 22:22, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: After waiting a week or so, I'm acting as suggested above. Tim riley (talk) 22:35, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Leplin 

message: The article states that Monteux was a graduate of one of the grandes écoles, but Wikipedia does not mention it in that article.... Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 21:50, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  France's grandes écoles 

message: (cur | prev) 00:00, 19 June 2014‎ TFA Protector Bot (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (79,569 bytes) (0)‎ . . (Protected Pierre Monteux: Upcoming TFA (bot protection) ([Move=Allow only administrators] (expires 00:00, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: [Move=Allow only administrators] means that page-move vandalism is prevented, and so yes the article was protected and yes that protection worked as there was no page-move vandalism. If you're under the impression that TFAs are automatically given semi-protection from editing during their appearance (thus preventing IP editors and new accounts from editing), then you're wrong. TFAs are not protected in advance of problems, but can be protected on the day if there is excessive vandalism. BencherliteTalk 22:37, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I have clearly misunderstood how Wikipedia 'Featured Articles' are dealt with. A great shame that these are not given some sort of protection against vandals and that people have to waste time correcting silly and offensive edits on that 'featured' day... It cannot do the image of Wikipedia any good. Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 19:48, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protection when it was the featured article 

message: we now have lists of famous conductors in the introductory section and lower down in the Monteux School paragraph. Do we need both?  Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 19:42, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: No. Agreed. I think the whole list could be removed from the intro section. Cheers, Markhh (talk) 23:25, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The list in the lead should be shorter than the main one, giving an overview, as laid down in WP:Lead. I have trimmed it, removing the obscurer names recently added during the front page onslaught. Tim riley talk  08:42, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  introductory section 

message: Although the article really needs a photo of an older Monteux, I would like to propose that 
be used somewhere, although I am not sure if the 'description' is quite accurate.
Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 18:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Very nice indeed. Well worth including if you can find a suitable space in the early years. Tim riley talk  00:51, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  another picture