Talk:Ruth Crawford Seeger

message: I see no indication in WP:DATE that birth/death dates be disentangled from place names. Where is it? Hyacinth (talk) 21:52, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Place names

message: The newspaper article linked at the bottom ("Composer Chose 'Life'...") is a dead link.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.47.142.139 (talk) 20:16, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for calling attention to this. The more usual technique is to place a  template on the item in question. Editors may then attempt to find a new address, or an archived copy through the Internet Archive Wayback Machine. In this case, the Star Bulletin appears to have taken down their archive and blocked access to it, so I have de-linked the article.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:52, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Deadlink

message: When you introduce the idea of different periods of composition, the difference should be explained... I really don't see the point of dividing her modernist output (1924-1932) into two periods, 1924-1929 and 1930-1932 (!?). If there is a boundary and not only a continuous change, it should be clearcut, and it should be supported by a reasonable argument. 
In Mrs Crawford-Seeger's own statements about her work, I find no boundary at all : she writes about the teachings of Charles Seeger in dissonant counterpoint (in 1930) and about her (solitary) stay in Berlin - but she already knew and used Schoenberg's music before and, to my knowledge, she never refers to these two events as a new turning point.
Moreover, listening to the music of those two alledged periods, I just hear a deeper exploration of musical possibilities when going from the first to the second :
- comparing the Suite N.2 for string quartet (1929) and the string quartet (1931), I hear a complexification of rythm and counterpoint, but those were already complex in the Suite ; 
- comparing Five Songs (1929) and Three Songs(1930-1932), except for the fact that the very original instrumentation of the Three Songs makes them more strinkingly modern than the piano part in Five Songs, I would do the same remark (complexication).
Complexification of something that was already complex before (but not as complex...) is not a qualititative but a quantitative change !
On the contrary, a division between a modernist and a "progressive traditionalist" periods is quite audible and totally relevant according to Mrs Crawford-Seeger's  strong personal statements : 
[From ca. 1935 and] " until [ca. 1947]… I had felt so at home among this (to me) new found music [American folk music] that I thought maybe this was what I wanted most. I listened to nothing else, and felt somewhat like a ghost when my compositions were spoken of. I answered no letters pertaining to them; requests for scores and biographical data were stuck in drawers…. But for years the only instrument in the house was a guitar, a modern dulcimer, and a special slow-speed phonograph for transcription of folk recordings. (1948) " 
(see http://depthome.brooklyn.cuny.edu/isam/rcstick.html)
Do you have a similar statement to support the division between 1929 and 1930 ?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.29.247.242 (talk) 09:37, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure if the above discussion is in regards to the list of compositions on this page. But if so, it seems to me a better categorization of works might be the one used in Grove: "chamber works," "other works" (including piano, choir, etc.), and "folksong arrangements and transcriptions." It might also make sense to include a category for the early works listed here that Crawford Seeger did not include in her catalog but are listed here, e.g. Theme and Variations, for piano, 1923. Thoughts, anyone? Kellyhiser (talk) 19:43, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I agree. The existing division into "early", "middle" and "late" seems a little arbitrary. Categories such as "orchestral", "chamber", "piano", "vocal", "choral" would seem more usual.  --Deskford (talk) 23:10, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  early and middle periods 

message: Hey, I noticed there isn't anything written on Crawford Seeger's death. czar ♔ 19:22, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Death 

message: Anyone have a reliable citation for her birthday? I see July 31 is listed here. Meanwhile, Brittanica and Encyclopedia.com list July 3 (but just on those websites, which may just be regurgitating from elsewhere). I also see July 3 on Musicalics.com (a composer database). Ribbonabaca (talk) 18:30, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Judith Tick in Grove Online (from Grove Dictionary of American Music second edition)  gives 3 July 1901, as does Paul Griffiths's article in The Oxford Companion to Music. Not surprisingly, Tick's 2000 biography also confirms this date: "On July 3, 1901, the Crawford's second child was born—a daughter named Ruth Porter Crawford" (p. 8). Hope this helps.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:54, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking at the article history, we had July 3 listed until 5 October 2015 when an IP editor changed it to July 31 without explanation. Glad to see it has now been changed back! --Deskford (talk) 19:15, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: And kudos to Ribbonabaca for spotting this. Well done!—Jerome Kohl (talk) 20:52, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes indeed, thanks Ribbonabaca!  --Deskford (talk) 20:57, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  birthday? 

message: The text states that Crawford and Seeger married in 1932, but the caption to the photo of Charles Seeger says 1935. Kylegann (talk) 16:24, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wedding Date