Talk:George Crumb

message: His score for Martha Graham should be mentioned. Badagnani (talk) 21:48, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Martha Graham]] 

message: I noted the inaccurate status about George Crumb....I am a cellist of some 30+ years and very much enjoy Mr Crumbs compositions. I am trained in music as well. There are people who are far far more gifted than myself, there are librarians, there are composers and other musicians all of whom would agree without hesitation that Crumb is an avant garde composer. I do not care in the least about the contentious nature of a category, to call Crumb a contemporary classical composer is roughly akin to calling Rachmaninoff an ivory tickler. I do not wish to go the 3 RR route, however, the idea of documenting music to be accurate is the key here......I have also created the articles for Vox Balaenae, and Crumbs Cello Sonata....please, if we cant agree, I ask to at least document this composer correctlyCoal town guy (talk) 14:57, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Documentation is everything on Wikipedia, though "contemporary classical" falls into the sky is blue category, since any composer of concert music active in the period after the Second World War (or, more narrowly, after 1975) falls into that category. "Avant garde" is somewhat narrower, since it presumably excludes traditionalists. It is a problematic term, however, as the Wikipedia article Avant-garde music demonstrates. It therefore requires a source to support it, though this should not be difficult to find, since there are journalists and critics out there who are prepared to label just about anything they do not like "avant garde". I have tagged the claim accordingly.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 16:40, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. I have met folks who would place the Beatles in the contemporary classical category..no joke...Specificity, is not all its cracked up to be...Coal town guy (talk) 17:02, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

text: Not to mention the fact that composers tend to wiggle around an awful lot. Ray Robinson, reviewing Penderecki's Polish Requiem in the Choral Journal 26, no. 4 (November 1985): 5–11, observes on p. 7: "When one looks closely at the work of contemporary composers it is clear that Penderecki is not alone in shifting to a more conservative style. A similar tendency is also present in the works of American composers like George Crumb (b. 1929), Jacob Druckman (b. 1928), and George Rochberg (b. 1918)."—Jerome Kohl (talk) 19:46, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Good observation. Crumbs cello sonata (solo cello) was deemed by Crumb to not be one of his better works. Point of fact it is one of his conservative pieces as far as extended technique, sure there is some reverse pizzicato, BUT when you compare that to his later work, its modern, but is it a piece that challenges the extremes of the instrument, probably not. I was however very happy to see that he kept in the "style" of doing extreme techniques on instruments and finding new timbres as opposed to lots of folks who throw their hands up and start using a PC or tape loops.... Coal town guy (talk) 19:51, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

text: I don't know the Cello Sonata, and to be honest I don't know his more recent work (after A Haunted Landscape), so I must accept what Robinson says about a change of style starting around that time. I have to disagree with you, however, when you identify extended or unusual playing techniques as a "style" (though I notice you use scare quotes). I notice that the articles on George Rochberg, Jacob Druckman, and Krzysztof Penderecki do not introduce their subjects as "avant garde" composers, either—no doubt because of the sharp sylistic change in their later works. This potential mutability of style is one of the arguments against the use of infoboxes on composer articles, since pigeon-holing a composer to one style is often a gross oversimplification. It is much more dependable to place a composer in time than it is to slap on a one-size-fits-all label, especially once you get beyond the more well-settled style periods (e.g., Renaissance, Baroque).—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:05, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Thats a very good point and yes, I did indeed use scare quotes...I am very very open to the info box and very very open to a review of the article. There are more than just a few citations missing. I did not want to pigeon hole anyone for sure. Hence, the info box sounds like a dam good idea. I think the worst understood of any composer, again, IMO, would be Ravel. His compositions tended to vary GREATLY and most normal folsk say, oh yeah, Bolero...BUT if you played Scarbro from Gespard De la Nuit, most people would not believe its the same person, much less composer. I am very open again to improving any article, and would love to find cooperation in this regard. My initial edits to the cello article were frustrating as technique/playing required a seperate article, at least, the German Wiki had a Good Article rating for the cello. HOWEVER, there are some glaring issues and yes, opinions that preclude a good article... Coal town guy (talk) 02:33, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

text: For sure this article needs more than just minor repairs. It should be at least twice as large as it now is, and at the same time needs tightening up. At the moment, it is little better than a loose ramble through some random details about Crumb's life and work. This is nothing special on Wikipedia—a lot of articles start out that way. Let's see what we can do about making this one better. I'm afraid I am going to start by unravelling your claim to "avant garde" as an adequate description of Crumb's music (with reliable sources, of course). Style considerations ought to be discussed in a section on the music itself, rather than be summed up in one shoot-from-the-hip word in the article's lede. If it proves possible to sum up a composer's style in this way, then this should only come after a more ample discussion has demonstrated things are really that simple. Ravel is an excellent example of a composer who cannot be so simply categorized, though stylistic variability is not uncommon in twentieth-century composers. Stravinsky is another well-known example: Russian nationalist, neoclassicist, serialist, separately and in various combinations. I don't think Crumb is quite so drastic a case, but on the other hand he seems to fall between familiar stylistic stools more than some.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 05:24, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: If the article becomes more accurate, unravel away! It is as you know, very frustrating to create a pseudo template for ANYTHING on Wikipedia....I look forward to the article improving..I actually had the pleasure to meet and practice with one of his sons who is an excellent cellistCoal town guy (talk) 15:01, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Crumb is an avant garde composer, why is he being designated as a contemporary classical composer???? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on George Crumb. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141015151345/http://www.uap.ualberta.ca/UAP.asp?LID=41&bookID=687 to http://www.uap.ualberta.ca/UAP.asp?LID=41&bookID=687
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:42, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The non notables who were removed from this article are internationally known composers who do work in other countries. If they are in German Wikipedia, and their lists and accomplishments are there, shake the dice, and do the research...mmmmk?Coal town guy talk 13:14, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Since you appear not to know how to do ILLs, I have done this on your behalf. Exactly one name showed up on German Wikipedia, unless you count the other composer named Robert Carl (not the one intended here, I think). Wikipedia has certain idiosyncratic criteria for determining notability, which do not always correspond with reality. One of these is that, if there is no Wikipedia biographical article, the person is regarded as not notable. The accepted procedure in such cases is to create a biographical article first, with reliable sources to verify notability. In the meantime, I have once again removed the remaining redlinks, per Deskford's perfectly reasonable prior edit. It is the responsibility of the editor adding names to satisfy the requirements for verifying notability; otherwise, we would have hundreds of thousands of names (including hoaxes) waiting for someone to "shake the dice, and do the research".—Jerome Kohl (talk) 16:07, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I am at this time and in perpetuity UNINVOLVED from this article. I made an observation , as a volunteer and I am told oh thats your issue. HA HA HA.. Thats a funny one. I can read The French or German Wikipedias and see the are notable. BUT NOT HERE, right? BUT IT GETS BETTER, thats my issue. I bitterly resent the implication of anything being "my problem". Of possible note, one of them is Austrailian, but the folks on German Wiki get it.....Coal town guy talk 16:27, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Coal town guy, I don't think anyone has said anything is "your issue" or "your problem", have they? You made an observation that some of the composers removed are covered in the German Wikipedia, and I thank you for that observation. You didn't say which ones are covered, but Jerome Kohl has done that bit of investigation for us. Jerome has also explained, in what seem to me very reasonable terms, how we use the existence of an article on this Wikipedia as a rule-of-thumb guide to notability. My reason for removing Robert Carl in my earlier edit, which you also reverted, was that Crumb is not mentioned at all in his article, so we have no verification that he was a pupil of Crumb. But in any case, the list of Crumb's students given here is not meant to be a complete list of everyone he ever taught, just a few examples of the most notable. It would seem to me from my UK perspective that the first five named are significantly better known than the rest, and there could be an argument for shortening this list to just those five. --Deskford (talk) 21:08, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Your observation about Robert Carl suggests that perhaps there is some confusion between the two composers of that name. However, the German Wikipedia article on the (German) Robert Carl does not mention any studies with Crumb, either, and the fact that he was 27 years older than Crumb makes such studies unlikely. Perhaps Coal Town Guy, who sent us to the German Wikipedia in the first place, can clarify which of these two composers is the Crumb student.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:19, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Robert Carl was born in 1954.......Crumb was born in 1929...Robert Carls University of Hartford bio, has Crumb listed as one of his teachers........[Carl bio page at Hartford].....Thomas Meadowcroft has the German Wiki reference. Robert Carl, was born 25 years after Crumb....You see, when people remove data and they dont know the subject matter, it is irksome because in good faith we assume the work was done. As to who edits the article, go nuts.It WILL NOT BE MECoal town guy talk 00:44, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of "Non notable" from article 

message: To add to this article:  infobox. 173.88.246.138 (talk) 15:49, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: To add to article

message: Crumb has died on 6 February 2022, according to this announcement from Bridge Records: https://twitter.com/bridgerecords/status/1490413313116844033. Please update the article and whatnot. Wilh3lmGo here to trout me if I do a stupid 21:14, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Death